What Linux Needs

[d_knuckle]

Hi all-------------

I did a search but didn't see a thread anywhere so I thought I would start this one.

What do you believe would be the greatest push for Linux as an OS ? Is it just a marketing thing?Too many distros? Too little support?If you were put in charge of making Linux a real competitor for Microsoft and Mac where would you start?Should Linux be making money?I know it has value,and folk should get paid for their hard work.Can it be transitioned into the household name that windows has become,and if so how?

Looking forward to your replies------------------knuckle

[jemimah]

By trying to set Linux up as the competition to Mac and Windows, you end up removing most of the advantages of Linux.

Linux is great because of the diversity and distributed development. The software is often developed by the actual end users - not by committee, and not for the purpose of making a profit. The result is power and flexibility.

However that's the very reason it kind of sucks as a desktop OS. There's no overall vision. No cohesiveness in application design. No user acceptance testing.

It's kind like a B movie. The awesomeness comes from the fact that people like you made it, on a budget like 1/1000th of the size of a blockbuster. So while the effects kind of suck, and the actors are inexperienced and awkward, the plot is more imaginative and satisfying because it hasn't been sanitized by marketing, dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator, or censored to avoid offending the sensitive.

Want to see what commercial desktop Linux looks like? Check out MeeGo, ChromeOS, and Android (and Ubuntu to some extent). They've made it more user friendly by limiting what you can do with it. It's not intended to be customized much. I imagine functionality will increase over time, but I'll still be running Puppy - quirks and all because I can make it mine and it appeals to my imagination.

[Bruce B]

If one considers the 'floor plans' for Linux dated circa 1991, we see
that Linux was an attempt to give us a Unix type operating system.

I think it ended up being very competitive with Unix even though it
maybe didn't really intend to be so competitive that it almost put
Unix out of business in several markets.

Why isn't Unix being mentioned? Well it is now, I guess.

Mac is Unix, much of it is open source software all boxed up with
restrictive licenses. Complete with lots of user restrictions
placed on it by Apple. And license restrictions I might add.

I do not want Apple's open source - closed up, the controls, the
restriction, the privacy intrusions or the license. Cloned or otherwise.

Linux and the rest of the community could have cloned the DOS and
Windows of 1991 if they'd wanted, but I don't see any reason.

Unix was very expensive, even for companies. And had horrible
license restrictions. (then enters Linux to the rescue, giving us a
powerful Unix type OS - free as in beer and free as in freedom of
speech.)

I can see why an non-innovative company making a single user,
single tasking operating system such as DOS/Windows of 1991
would want to borrow ideas from Unix to put in their operating
system.

The reverse is not true, Unix was so advanced at the time, it didn't
look to DOS for ideas. At least none that I am aware of or can
imagine.

Windows of recent years is cheap and there it is. I mean look at the
computer and there it is. Another way of my saying that virtually all
pre-built PCs come with Windows.

Why bother cloning something so cheap and available? And already
installed?

Linux distros are compilations of mainly Free Open Source Software.
That is what we have: FOSS. And we have an abundance of it
and it's still active and improving.

After all the years in business, Microsoft still has little Free Open
Source Software. None that I know of anyway.

If Microsoft doesn't have FOSS and that's primarily what we are
about, I propose that - Microsoft is not even competing.

MS main market share is on Desktops, Laptops and Servers.

I think Linux has already beat it with Servers, at least on the
Internet.

Linux beats it in market share in Super-Computing and smaller
devices like our personal routers, televisions, etc.

(Market share in this case defined as; number of installations as
opposed to dollar value of a given market.)

Mostly why I don't personally care about desktop share is - I'm more
than tired of people complaining that Linux is not like Windows.

For goodness sakes, if I get rid of a high overhead and low
performing girlfriend and replace her with low overhead - high
performing girlfriend, I shouldn't complain that she isn't like the
replacement.

Worse, if the analogy were girlfriends, as it applies to computers,
you can dual boot and use both girlfriends.

~

[tubeguy]

The trouble with trying to convert users to Linux is the out-of-the-box experience.

For those used to Windows, it's good for virtually everything a normal user would want to do, with important exceptions such as gaming and Office apps (Open Office isn't perfect and at the first sign if a problem, most Windows users will balk).

For Mac fanboys, not so good. Where's iTunes, iLife, iWhatever? Dreamweaver? Only certain older versions under Wine. Gimp? It doesn't look like Photoshop, doesn't work like Photoshop, there goes another potential user.

In my case, the only reason I still have a Windows box at home is graphics, I have not found a way to calibrate my monitor. I've read that I can use the profile I have in Windows with Linux, but I haven't found a way to do that in Puppy.

There have been reams written about which is better and why, and I have to say that at this point it's just a non-issue. Windows/Mac users migrate to Linux because they see the benefits of speed, stability, security and freedom. Those who don't know any better mostly don't care and if they do, it's only a matter of time anyway.

People notoriously get stuck in their ways, any change is bad to them. It's a matter of showing people that the things they use computers for can be done many different ways with many different programs. "Photoshopping" is working with graphics, and there's tons of other programs to do that. Many different word processors, spreadsheet apps, browsers and music players all do the same basic things, nobody wants to learn a new interface. I'm guilty of that with gimp, I've been using Photoshop for years and just don't have the gumption to get on the gimp learning curve, even though I know it's got all the power of PS.

Trying to explain to a typical user that Linux has more potential than any other OS is futile. Yes it can do anything you want it to, most any app you need has already been written or you can write your own. But hit somebody with the concept of a package manager and you get a blank stare.

I guess my point is that simply by virtue of not being Windows or Mac, Linux can not compete with either one in any significant way in their markets. It just doesn't seem to matter to the rest of the world that Linux runs most of the websites and the internet at large. Doesn't matter that Linux is at the heart of supercomputing or that it may be in your watch, DVD player or phone. On the desktop people want Windows, and for the artsy-fartsy types Mac. It doesn't matter that with Linux you can have a flashier, cooler desktop with better eye candy than any Winbox or Apple. It doesn't matter that Linux is inherently more secure and that the internet would be a better place if it weren't for all the unpatched Windows boxes out there.

I appreciate Windows because it got me into computers in the first place, and these days I make money on the side fixing Windows systems. Most of the peple I help "click the E" to get online, it's pointless to try to get them to use Linux because they don't know the difference between a browser and an email client. They think the web IS the internet, and have no desire to learn anything new except how to put smileys in their emails and take quizzes on Facebook. I can clean Windows systems and make them secure, so I do it for them. If they ask what I use I tell them, and in about 15 seconds I get the blank stare.

I'm pretty jaded when it comes to computers in general, and I see OS's as a means to an end. The right one for the right job. Windows for gaming, Apple for hipsters, Linux for everything else.

All that said, I still think it's important to try and increase awareness and educate people about the benefits of Linux. If more people really understood the benefits of open-source and Linux they might be able to see through the Windows and Mac hype machines, and see that it isn't about making money at all, it's about making computing better for everyone.

[Pizzasgood]

There is no right and wrong OS other than what the user makes of it. To me Linux is the right OS, because I say so. Windows did not make me happy. Linux does. That doesn't mean that I should impose Linux on the rest of the world. If they tried that on me with Windows I'd probably murder them. And then I'd go to prison. And that wouldn't be very fun.

[tubeguy]

There is no right and wrong OS other than what the user makes of it. To me Linux is the right OS, because I say so. Windows did not make me happy. Linux does. That doesn't mean that I should impose Linux on the rest of the world. If they tried that on me with Windows I'd probably murder them. And then I'd go to prison. And that wouldn't be very fun.

Unless they had pizza.

[DaveS]

Easy question............a standardised package format.

[Bruce B]

. . . If they tried that on me with Windows I'd
probably . . . them. And then I'd go to prison. And that wouldn't be
very fun.

Precisely, and to that extent the penal aspect of the law is
the deterrent.

If prison were fun, it would make a lousy deterrent.

Even jail. Next time one of us lets a ticket go to warrant and we
find ourselves with our car towed away and our body in jail, it is by
design that we hate the experience so much.

Imagine a business intentionally designed to discourage people
from becoming customers, and yet it has more customers than it
can service and treat badly. To make matters worse, many
customers keep coming back for more.

[Bruce B]

Easy question............a standardised package format.

First we need the concept of a package.

I don't say this lightly, rather as a matter of historical trivia.

When I started with Puppy, a package was largely a matter of
whatever you can beg, borrow or steal.

As for compiling, Puppy didn't have one.

So, I compiled my Puppy destined 'packages' in a Slackware based
distro and moved the compiled files to the Puppy partition and it
worked swell.

Then people said Puppy wasn't Slackware compatible,
but someday it will be, or they said something to that effect.

Fortunately due to ignorance (mine or theirs) I continued merrily
along my way compiling source code with the Slackware based
distro's compiler and it worked.

~

Posted for the sake of trivia and interest, and not to refute your opinion.

[Pizzasgood]

Easy question............a standardised package format.

We (that is, Linux) have one. It's called the source tarball. The filename is formatted as PROGRAM-VERSION.tar.gz, and contains the folder PROGRAM-VERSION/, which contains a script named "configure" that accepts standard options. When run, that generates a Makefile that supports standard targets, which may be used to compile and install the program. The whole process is pretty routine.

Code: Select all

wget http://www.wherever.com/whatever-1.2.3.tar.gz
tar xf whatever-1.2.3.tar.gz
cd whatever-1.2.3
./configure --prefix=/usr
make
make install

Of course, there are always a few other minor standards out there (such as is used by Python programs) and the occasional package that follows its own standard. But the above covers the vast bulk of Linux software.

Granted, it doesn't address dependency resolution.

However, it is universal across nearly all distros. Embedded and very small distros might not have a development environment included, but one must be available someplace (even if hosted by a different distro) or else the distro in question would not exist.

[Bruce B]

[cut, snip and out of context]

Granted, it doesn't address dependency resolution.

I think the issue of finding these dependency files can be enough to
drive a normally crazy person even more crazy.

My fix for this which I've posted now and then, I think is worth
posting again.

I have installed usually three to six distros at a time and many of
them I rarely if ever use. I even install extra packages.

And there is my personal local file repository.

I have a script to catalog all the files.

Another script to locate files in a matter of seconds or less.

================

Considering (like yourself) I enjoy small distributions, I am often
short of the .so files I may need. But the big distros I've installed
often have what I need.

Anyway, it is fairly rare that I have to look outside my local machine
to find these needed files.

If anyone wants more information on how to do this, feel free to
ask, I will try and explain.

~

[Lobster]

calibrate my monitor

@tubeguy
Puppeee and Fluppy have such a program but not sure of the name
http://www.gimpshop.com/
turns gimp more photoshop like

Regarding illegal operating systems.
Sooner or later some politico
will make using Windows a criminal activity.
After all most victims of internet and cyber crime
are Windows users.
The victims are guilty - according to some.

In the UK some penguins have been molested
by the police (BLAG Linux)

I read recently that Bill Gates is giving away half his fortune and encouraging others to do so
What a nerd. Bravo to him.

Google has recently been hacking peoples
info and their activities will become more dubious as
their power rises (always the way)

I find most Window users are not happy campers
but will not change.
In Europe the move for Government to NOT waste
tax on what is already available is growing.
I am still waiting for BBC Linux
or HM Linux (by Appointment to Her Majesty)
I believe the NSA release a version of BSD
(probably an old version)
Red Flag is the Chinese Governments Linux
and Cuba only uses Open Source
Seems a lot of Government in Europe
are going Desktop Linux

When I first started playing with Linux I had no
intention to change . . . it just sort of happened.

Change to Puppy
Linux is here

[Bruce B]

Easy question............a standardised package format.

We (that is, Linux) have one. It's called the source tarball. The filename is formatted as PROGRAM-VERSION.tar.gz, and contains the folder PROGRAM-VERSION/, which contains a script named "configure" that accepts standard options. When run, that generates a Makefile that supports standard targets, which may be used to compile and install the program. The whole process is pretty routine.

{text cut}

Very good point.

For many, the preferred way is to compile applications which could
be otherwise installed as a pre compiled package.

For me this might be even more true with Puppy for a number of
reasons.

• One reason is I know who compiled it, namely me, a person I more
  or less trust.
  
  More importantly; I decide what to include, exclude as well as
  compile options.
  
  As for a Puppy particular, many of its packagers remove man pages
  and other documentation. And I like the documentation as a rule

~

[postfs1]

To reedit up to date.

[dawg]

My quick answer:

- Definitely too many distros (derivatives/ego)! instead of there being more focus (people) on making the good/mainstream ones even better.
- Needs more marketing/activism, informing the masses there is a beautiful and diverse world outside the Big Brother M$ and the Apple!
- Linux can make money by selling CDs & user support, dedicated/specialised solutions/versions. + Sponsors & donators can help.

I think some of this has already been discussed in great depth in some "promoting Puppy" thread(s) somewhere or something similar.

[Dewbie]

If you were put in charge of making Linux a real competitor for Microsoft and Mac where would you start?

Although I understand the sentiment, the question makes me cringe.
Because if it ever got to that point, antivirus programs (and other bloatware) might be required.

[01micko]

What Linux Needs.

• Stable kernel develpment (which it has)
  Eager developers ( ditto )
  Package management??? If guys like amigo and friends continue with things like src2pkg then diversification is to be embraced

I've used Mac. What can you do with a Mac? Pretty much what it tells you, not much more.

I've used Windows.. same question, anything, as long as it doesn't crash! At this point I will ask a question. Can rebooting wear out your computer? ( ) [I'm leaning toward "probably"]

I've used many and varying linux. The most crashes I've had is with Puppy. However, in saying that, I am pushing old boxes to their limits. Never once has Puppy crashed on me on anything with more than 512MB of RAM, excepting a USB install where I have totally gone mad downloading anything and everything before making a pupsave and/or within 30 minutes. (For those who don't know, these crashes are RAM crashes.. that is, RAM filling up before anything can be saved to permanent storage so RAM can be flushed, and I do push hard, NO SWAP, noobs don't know about swap)

So Puppy isn't perfect. Is Ubuntu?... my Athlon 2100+ with 768M RAM and Radeon 9200PRO won't even look at running Ubuntu Lucid.. barely manages Mandriva 2010..definitely won't handle KDE 4.X.. Crunchbang was pathetic, RedHat .. (Fedora).. c'mon... is free proprietary software that bad?

And what on Earth are Google doing? We all know they are collecting too much data about us.. but will that be good or bad?

I reiterate... kernel, devs, cutting edge devs...

What more does Linux need? [KISS?]

Cheers

[Pizzasgood]

Can rebooting wear out your computer?

I am not an expert, but technically, yes it can. Each time it powers up and powers down there is thermal stress. Going from hot to cold to hot to cold too many times could cause damage. But I wouldn't worry about it unless you're rebooting hourly or something, and have inadequate cooling.

Definitely too many distros

No, there aren't. There is only a handful of serious mainstream distros, and those all have more than enough people working to improve them. But being large mainstream distros with many people using them and many people developing them, they have a lot of inertia. They can't respond as quickly to change as the small distros can. The wide variety of spin-off projects and low barriers to entry allow a lot more room for experimentation with new concepts. When new concepts have been proven in the small projects, they are more likely to be adopted by the larger ones. So in some respects, the small distros are Linux's R&D department.

The large variety of Linux also helps to fill many niches and leave a lot of room for friendly competition. Without that variety things would quickly become stagnant. Puppy never would have happened if we all focused on just a couple main distros. It would have required too much of a change, and the voices that would have thought of it would have been too small, especially with all the highly independent Linux developers grouped together in only a few projects. Too many chefs spoil the broth.

Think of it this way: Would you gather the world's musicians together and command them to focus their efforts on only two or three genres? That would be a pretty boring world.


The goal should not be to dominate the world. It should be to improve the world.

Domination harms. Variety improves. If you don't believe me, ask the Gros Michel bananas. They were the primary type of banana eaten in the USA and Europe, but most were wiped out by disease in the 1950s because they had no genetic variety. Now we eat the Cavendish, which has the same problem but was resistant to that particular disease.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2 ... t-be-saved


But that brings us to another topic, something that is often forgotten by those shouting for changes in how Linux is developed. Most of the people involved with Linux are not doing it to change the world, they are doing it for fun. Fun isn't a side effect, it is the primary motivation. That is why those doing the shouting will never accomplish anything of significance. Nobody who matters cares. The shouters think, "Wow, they set out to change the world and look how much they've done. But look how much more they could do if they made these few changes." But that is bullcrap. Changing the world is the side effect of a bunch of geeks having fun in their free time. Because that's just how epic geeks are.

[tubeguy]

Interesting take on this subject:
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/ ... ing-707828

[WhoDo]

Most of the people involved with Linux are not doing it to change the world, they are doing it for fun. Fun isn't a side effect, it is the primary motivation. That is why those doing the shouting will never accomplish anything of significance. Nobody who matters cares.

Absolutely true! I think Dr. Seuss said it best when he said, "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Now that's the true geek philosophy IMHO.