Comments?

[iccaros]

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=15811

[robroy]

He is probably right in that we don't want it to take off. Don't want it to end up like windows, overpriced, vulnerable and way too bulky. Interesting article iccaros, thanks

[shanenin]

I kind of agree. I personally was drawn towards linux because I wanted to learn how computers worked(geek). If my only concern was getting pictures from my camera to my computer, I doubt I would have ever givng linux a try. I see one exception to this. If all computers came without an OS, and I could have saved $100 from the very beginning, I may have started out using linux.

edit added later//

I missed the point of the article, but felt like leaving some opinion. In all honesty, I enjoy linux how it is. I don't feel that it needs to compete to get the masses. In one respect, I wish linux did compete with Windows, competition. Other then OSX, which does not run easily on non-apple hardware, Windows has no competition to keep its price low, and product good.

Edited September 13, 2006 by shanenin

[jcl]

I missed the point of the article, but felt like leaving some opinion.

I read it several times and microfisked it and I still don't know what his overall point is. Almost every claim in the article is wrong[0] but even ignoring that none of them support his assertion that Linux would have to sacrifice its essential nature to succeeded in the desktop market. The phone analogy actually brought to mind the success of Linux in the mobile phone market despite operating as a black box product for non-technical consumers.

[0] All operating systems are designed by "technology enthusiasts", black box phones are the norm and the 'enthusiasts' don't seem to care, Linux isn't actually transparent unless you can read C, most people are visual-spatial learners (~60% according to Wikipedia), and consumers don't seem to have problem with choice in other markets (think clothing, cars, phones, game consoles)

In all honesty, I enjoy linux how it is.

Indeed. I'm actually more worried about Linux changing to satisfy the whims Linux community. Linux has been accumulating features that strike me as being un-Unix-y. GNOME and KDE might be the worst offenders: both of them seem to be pushing Linux away from the Unixy "lots of little specialized programs sending bytes over channels" model and toward the Windowsy "a few giant omnipurpose programs in a tangle of quasi-distributed objects" model. (That model is older than Windows, indeed older than Unix, but Windows is a good example.) I don't dislike the latter model but it's Not Unix.

(The funny thing is that Microsoft's Singularity follows by the Unix model, in a broad sense, more closely than any Unix, with the exceptions of Plan 9 and Inferno. It would amusing if Linux became a better Windows at the same time Windows became a better Unix.)

I don't feel that it needs to compete to get the masses. In one respect, I wish linux did compete with Windows, competition. Other then OSX, which does not run easily on non-apple hardware, Windows has not competion to keep its price low, and product good.

On the other hand, while they may not be competing in the sense that they're grave a threat to Microsoft, Linux, OS X, and Java have done wonders for Microsoft's products. The quality of the operating system has been improving steadily, they're going in interesting directions with the user-experience, and .NET is working out nicely. There's a chance that Vienna or Vienna+1 could be a great operating system.

Edited September 13, 2006 by jcl