How Linux Can Achieve Faster World Domination

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]zoemayne[/nom] 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.[/citation]
You could use virtualisation. Zero compatibility issues because you're not trying to fake Windows libraries like with Wine, you're using an actual Windows installation.

 

[extremepcs]

I agree that Linux should not be dumbed down for the masses. It will just make it less stable, and if market share increases, it will become a target for malware/viruses. It's great at what it does... leave it alone. It shouldn't even have a GUI, IMHO.

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]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]
Yea that is true, I just stated that cause I hear that Linux is fastest at this or that, when I don't find it to be true, many times I have found Windows to be faster on certain comps then Linux, while other time Linux has been faster. Just bothers me how some say Linux is faster at everything, which is def not true, I do like Linux though, just sux not having the programs I am used too.

 

[zoemayne]

If you think about it ubuntu should be ahead of apples Os. Ubuntu should have some piece of the Office market especially since its free!! They need to step their game up maybe get their OS to work flawlessly w dells(cause they are(were?) the number 1 purchased PC brand for offices. Most people who have apples dont have it for designing(video/photography). Ubuntu should target those.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]Just bothers me how some say Linux is faster at everything, which is def not true[/citation]
No OS is ever the best at everything. Sticking to an OS religiously is stupid. Always use the right tool for the job In the end the OS should not encumber productivity, and if it does then you should switch to one that doesn't encumber you, or encumbers you less.

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Linux market share will never come close to Windows. End of story.. [/citation]
That's quite likely. But it certainly has the capacity to significantly eat into Windows' market share as Apple has with OSX. Linux users are at odds with each other over whether or not this greater market share is a good thing or not though.

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]No games will ever be written for Linux, why? No money in it. [/citation]
The existence of games on Linux disproves your argument. Do some research before making sweeping statements about things you can't comprehend due to them falling outside of your narrow world view.

 

[techd2]

Sounds like points from a book I'm reading... "After the Software Wars"

 

[LORD_ORION]

1) File system is not intuitive for average users (this is not to say it isn't technologically sophisticated, but come on, it needs an overhaul if you want more people not sporting neck beards to adopt it).
2) Real, native, professionally made games!
3) Openly attack Cloud computing with extreme prejudice. Seriously, people are stupid. Start spreading FUD about cloud computing and how Linux will save you from the 1984 scenarios.

 

[Guest]

Id use linux, but all my software and games are for Windows. And every new game I am going to want to play is for Windows. Provide me a Linux OS that can use Windows software, and not in emulation!, and Ill try it.

But if I am just going to end up booting into Windows 7 every time I want to play a game or use a piece of software what is the point!

 

[shin0bi272]

My issues with linux are pretty basic. Ive been trying to get into using it but if linux doesnt have a driver for your video card there's a good chance you'll have to compile the driver yourself. Im sorry but I shouldnt have to go that far to install a simple unified driver from nvidia that windows has a single installer for. If each flavor of linux had its own executable extension (or they shared one) people would use linux more. Having to compile a program to get it to run and most of the distros Ive used required you to actually type in the commands to install a program. While I know linux purists love that feature both windows and mac moved away from command line dependence 10 years ago or more (not sure if mac ever had it honestly).

Enterprise admins love it because you dont have to worry about it breaking down as much and it doesnt have to be restared every damned day (though Ive had my pc running for 3 months on windows without any problems before). Once you get the system running it runs great... but that's ideal for servers not so much home users.

Home users want simple, quick and intuitive. Not, put in the cd, follow the prompts, and it installs all the programs you're ever gonna need and there arent any other apps to install and play with. Linux installs office, paint, games, etc. on install and other than programs in wine and the few linux games that exist (enemy territory quake wars for one), you're basically SOL for adding anything to it. Most of the time even if you do find something that's cool that you might wanna add you either have to compile it or spend 20 minutes figuring out how to install the thing and run it. My only other issue with it is there's a new distro of fedora out every time I turn around... not sure about the others but jeezus no wonder linux has drivers for all the new hardware they're updating their kernel every week!

Its not that I dislike linux, I do WANT to like it (hey its free)... its that its not meant for home use and that means its going to be limited in its adoption. Office users are a perfect target for linux though because they get web browsing, IM, email, and office (thats compatible with windows)and none of the spyware and virus concerns. On top of that since there's nothing to install and its complicated to install anything anyway an office worker wont be installing their favorite program from home on it either. Then there's the fact that it's free for the workstation version of the OS... big money saver for employers. Just gotta make sure that all your programs run in linux or wine first.

 

[dstudentx]

I like the romantic thought of linux but it just takes too much work to achieve a simple task. I been using Ubuntu for sometime now. I think Linux is amazing for anything scientific but when when it comes to everyday computing its not with the time it takes to get simple programs running.

 

[Guest]

Chalk me down to not being particularly impressed with Linux.

Don't get me wrong, it certainly has strong points compared to the other major OSs of our time but in the end they all suck.

Linux is still based around a software concept that's 40 years old. It's still not a micro-kernel architecture, includes a whole slew of command shells and scripting languages who're all trying to outdo themselves at being the most bass ackwards to use.

On top of that there's the kitchen sink attitude toward software installation that's common to all OSs of our time.

What's the most major issue when it comes to world domination is however what the GPL community thinks of as one of its biggest strengths - diversity.

The ability to customize your OS is indeed great, though hardly particularly intuitive or easy under Linux, but if it's ever going to be popular with the teeming masses there can only be _one_ distribution available.

Look at the sheer number of packaging options for the OS and GUI components, how many distributions are there by now? And then add the various BSD derivatives into the mix as for the common user the difference is non-existent.

It's just hopeless to try and get to grips with.

If you want one OS to rule the world you should be looking at something like QNX Neutrino for the technical merits, a single - very basic and human readable - command shell, a strongly integrated scripting language and take a long, hard look at - dare I say it - the 1994 AmigaOS GUI.

Technical merits.
Single distribution format.
Clear and rigidly defined style guide for software installation and UI.
Single, human readable command shell.
Single, well integrated scripting language.
Intuitive and responsive GUI.

From where I'm standing Linux can't offer a single one of those items. Windows and MacOS aren't perfect by any means but they do get a lot closer to the kind of functionality necessary for a consumer-friendly OS.

Linux might have improve upon Windows when it comes to technical merits, though today the distinction is far less than what it used to be, but those are still not _good_ - simply better than Windows. However, that slight advantage cannot in any way justify what's lost by switching over, at least not for the kind of users they're hoping to pull in.

If this is the vision of the GPL community then I can only conclude that propriety software, and OSs, are going to be with us for a very long time.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]1) File system is not intuitive for average users (this is not to say it isn't technologically sophisticated, but come on, it needs an overhaul if you want more people not sporting neck beards to adopt it)[/citation]
What's intuitive about the Windows filesystem? What makes a filesystem intuitive?

[citation][nom]Shin0bi272[/nom]My issues with linux are pretty basic. Ive been trying to get into using it but if linux doesnt have a driver for your video card there's a good chance you'll have to compile the driver yourself. Im sorry but I shouldnt have to go that far to install a simple unified driver from nvidia that windows has a single installer for.[/citation]
You don't ever have to compile NVIDIA drivers, in fact you can't compile them because you don't have the source code. So don't go down that track. If you could compile them then the drivers would be almost as good as or better than the Windows ones, because the community would be working on the source code to produce decent binaries.

Granted, the installation method on most distros for NVIDIA drivers is quite poor (Ubuntu does this well), but wouldn't be necessary if they could be compiled into the kernel as other open source drivers are. NVIDIA is to blame for that, but the distro maintainers should at least work on making the process simpler in the meantime. Fortunately for most people they will never need the NVIDIA drivers, or any other binary video drivers.

[citation][nom]Shin0bi272[/nom]If each flavor of linux had its own executable extension (or they shared one) people would use linux more. [/citation]
DEB? RPM? Why even bother with these anyway when most things that the average user will need can be found via the package manager?

[citation][nom]Shin0bi272[/nom]Having to compile a program to get it to run and most of the distros Ive used required you to actually type in the commands to install a program.[/citation]
Then you were either using an obscure proprietary program or you don't know how to use a package manager.

[citation][nom]Shin0bi272[/nom]Home users want simple, quick and intuitive.you're basically SOL for adding anything to it.[/citation]
You really haven't ever used a package manager... have you? There is arguably more software available for Linux than Windows.

[citation][nom]Shin0bi272[/nom]Most of the time even if you do find something that's cool that you might wanna add you either have to compile it or spend 20 minutes figuring out how to install the thing and run it.[/citation]
Most of the time? I've done it once, and that was because I was getting developer tools. You'd make a good politician with all these exaggerated points.

[citation][nom]Shin0bi272[/nom]My only other issue with it is there's a new distro of fedora out every time I turn around... not sure about the others but jeezus no wonder linux has drivers for all the new hardware they're updating their kernel every week![/citation]
Every 3 months actually. And only after extensive testing. Most changes are never committed to the final release of the kernel because the code doesn't meet quality or functional standards. If you don't like frequent new releases, you should go with Debian. You could also try something that is a rolling release, which means you'll never have a new version to upgrade to, you'll just be receiving small incremental updates all the time.

 

[Tomtompiper]

"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."

The only breaks on the XP install were the enforced breaks waiting for it to format her new 325gb hard drive, 1hr 20 mins and having to boot up a live Linux CD to download the network driver, about 10 mins and the constant reboots after every driver install. As to Ubuntu, I have tried it and it is a slow install and awkward for non geeks to use, too many trips to command line for my liking. The Linux install was PCLinuxOS as a dual boot using spare room on an existing Windows partition. I suggest you give it a try to see if I am exaggerating

 

[randomizer]

You should have done a quick format. There's little reason to full format a HDD any more.

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]You should have done a quick format. There's little reason to full format a HDD any more.[/citation]

It was from a HP OEM rescue disk and there was no choice given. Believe me I wish there had been.

As to those suggesting one distro for newbies which everybody gets behind I agree whole heartedly. The problem here is that some people have an aversion to including Non-Free software in their distro and some are pragmatic. The fact that most developers are working freelance means if they disagree with the direction of a distro or app, they walk and fork off their own idea. You can't force people to work together, so the only alternative I see is to set up a strong set of standards and force people to comply with them if they want to use the Linux brand. It may be a case of forking the kernel and having a separate desktop kernel with a reduced complexity but rigorous adherence to agreed standards.

Additionally if you were building a new machine to run OSX or Windows7 would you blindly buy random components and expect the OS to work? I think it is time for Linux on the desktop to stop trying to support every piece, of hardware ever created, it is a distraction. If manufacturers can't be arsed to supply open drivers to the Linux kernel then the community should ignore those products. I'm sure given the great number of PC's running Linux that some manufactures will step up to the plate and support such a initiative.

So in a nutshell my solution for the future of Linux is rigid standards and reduced hardware support for "Desktop Linux". and let the developers concentrate on the important stuff.

 

[randomizer]

I don't think the "one distro to rule them all" idea is good, and it will never be accepted anyway. I also can't see the kernel splitting in two. The amount of work to maintain two kernels would be enormous considering how much checking and rechecking goes into the current one.

I envision a distro where they do enforce certain standards, and only software which meets those standards will be included. This doesn't mean you have to conform, but it will mean your application is not included in the default repositories if it doesn't conform.

 

[aethm]

I think there are valid reasons to use Windows. I also think that Linux would be more than adequate for 90% of computer users.

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]I don't think the "one distro to rule them all" idea is good, and it will never be accepted anyway. I also can't see the kernel splitting in two. The amount of work to maintain two kernels would be enormous considering how much checking and rechecking goes into the current one. I envision a distro where they do enforce certain standards, and only software which meets those standards will be included. This doesn't mean you have to conform, but it will mean your application is not included in the default repositories if it doesn't conform.[/citation]



The "Desktop Kernel" would be a subset of the Linux kernel but with reduced hardware support and would therefore not be onerous to maintain, and as I indicated I don't think you can force one distro on people. My idea is for rigid standards and reduced hardware support, that is simplifying things, not making them harder or more complex. The goal is to free up developers time to do the important stuff.

 

[annymmo]

[citation][nom]androticus[/nom]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.[/citation]

You must hate windows versions (XP >> Vista) is also not compatible).

That's why kernel developers want to have free, open drivers.
Sometimes breaking compatibility is necessary.
Linux is still in development and changing.
Sometimes bad choices where made in the past that prohibit enhancements needed today. Then It must be decided if it's left like it is or if it needs to be all rebuilt. The latter option is not possible if the drivers are proprietary, closed because the kernel developers cannot adjust them.

 

[annymmo]

Garbage collection is necessary but insufficient for reliable code. We should move away from C/C++ for user-mode code. For new efforts, I recommend Mono or Python. Moving to fewer languages and runtimes will increase the amount of code sharing and increase the pace of progress. There is a large bias against Python in the free software community because of performance, but it is overblown because it has multiple workarounds. There is a large bias against Mono that is also overblown.

Mono is legal quicksand. Not much people use it anyway.
(These so called use consist mostly of ex-Microsoft employees doing Open Source projects, hm why would that be?)
OMG, MONO!!! WTF?!? you don't go for mono it's crap!!
Rather mention Lua or Vala.

 

[nebun]

ok, open source software is very buggy. i would rather pay for something and know that if i have a problem someone is there to help me with it. listen to me "LINUX WILL NEVER TAKE OVER MICROSOFT, OR APPLE" unless they start to offer more games and better software.

 

[palladin9479]

What most people are forgetting is that no sane company will give away their intellectual property. GPL is good and all, but if I'm company A and I develop this new code that lets me do this crazy cool stuff, I'd be freaking retarded to just post it out in the wild for my competition "Company B" to pick up. R&D is not free, it takes time. If it takes me one year to develop and perfect a piece of software, that is serious money invested, and to just *give* that to my competition for free (they didn't have to spend any time / money on the R&D) would put me out of business fast. No matter how good you are, you won't survive if you can't produce money. Bottom line that many Berkley-esque uni kids don't realize is that money makes the world go round, this includes the computer industry. Every major developer knows this, its the reason you don't see a single piece of major software in a GPL format. The dev's of various software need to get off their high horses about distributing proprietary software. As long as the company doesn't mind you openly distributing their compiled software (without source code) there should be absolutely no issue's with it.

Now Linux is a great idea, its open community driven, meaning everyone can do whatever they want. But average Joe will never go along with that, he wants it easy and doesn't mind spending money to make it so. Several distro's have potential, Ubunto, Mandrava, CentOS (my personal favorite for server work), people just need to quit moaning about propriety software and try to work together.

 

[annymmo]

@Exodite2
That's right, the distro's are way too much doing their own thing.
Why do companies want to plaster all over the interface (linux netbooks) when it's not necessary? Isn't placing your logo's on it enough, it is, time that moronic corporate basterds get that fact.

The freedesktop.org should fix a few stuff.
Recently saw someone who wanted to do a theming format.
that person suggested some pretty bad stuff:
- depending heavily on online use
- letting one organization, person form a choke point
(Instead of defining how to package and make an application have a theme and theme format, he thinks it would be a good idea to have every application sent him/FreeDesktop.org a specification that is then integrated. This is a very stupid thing to decide. What he's gonna do if it would work out like he thinks, he gets 100's of requests a day and can't manage them.)

These are the kind of stuff that go wrong in Linux.
What we need is:
-software packaging format
Solution: rpm5 and it's Lua scripts based API could unify that for us.
It's already being used on some distro's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPM_Package_Manager#RPM_v5
-single well integrated scripting language
Solution: use python instead of bash and use API's that are language agnostic. Saw something a while ago of writing bash scripts in Python. Very interesting.
-well defined and rigid style guide for software solution and GUI.
Solution: There needs to be some good API's. So KDE and Gnome could build a unified, GUI frontend and distributions could still have a unique backend. (or multiple for that matter)
There seems to be some activity about this in KDE, hopefully Gnome and Xfce will follow: http://drfav.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/introducing-shaman-a-new-universal-package-management-frontend/ (And FreeDesktop.org cooperating very good with this.)

Further I would want to see the directory structure changed to that from GoboLinux: http://gobolinux.org/
Or at least being able to choose one would be nice. The same way as one can choose a file system today. This shouldn't be a problem for software because there should be a software installation management API that allows for a custom software directory. This means users can choose any directory structure and don't have troubles because of choosing one over the other. This is just my personal taste, it doesn't matter much for a lot of people, it certainly would improve some stuff.

With these improvements Linux would be ready for INDEPENDENT software publishers, hey wasn't free software for freedom again?
I don't have any advantage to switch to a bunch of incoherent distro lords. I want the software developer to be able to make the packages.

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]ok, open source software is very buggy. i would rather pay for something and know that if i have a problem someone is there to help me with it. listen to me "LINUX WILL NEVER TAKE OVER MICROSOFT, OR APPLE" unless they start to offer more games and better software.[/citation]

What open source software have you been using? Most open source software goes through the Alpha, Beta, Release candidate and Stable cycle, if you stick to using the Stable version the likelihood of experiencing bugs would be no higher than any proprietary software. As to support most good distros have a choice of support options. The forums and IRC support for most distros I have tried are fast, friendly and free. If you want games, dual boot or get a console as to better software ask the BBC why they use Linux to edit programs, it's not because they are broke. Just because a piece of software costs money doesn't make it better.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]What most people are forgetting is that no sane company will give away their intellectual property.[/citation]
Google did with Chromium. Red Hat and Novell do with RHEL and SuSE Enterprise Linux. The advantage with doing so is that you don't need to spend a year or two doing expensive R&D because the community works on it for you. Your competitors may as well, but according to my understanding of the GPL they can't release products using your code without also releasing their own products' source. This in turn means you can "steal" your competitors product and improve on it again yourself, as can the community. This means the product is improved at a rapid rate, more than any one company with 10 code monkeys working 9-5 can do. Both companies can sell commercial support for their software, and don't have much R&D overhead to make up.