The Future of Linux?

Post Reply New Topic

Ultimately, it's UNIX that's keeping Linux down. It was never intended to be a Microsoft killer. The GNU project was started with the intent of replacing proprietary UNIX systems with a free (beer & speech) alternative. Changing the Linux system in order to appeal to Windows programmers would remove the UNIX migration path without any guarantee of becoming relevant in the desktop market.

Ubuntu is wonderful.

I think linux keeps getting better. But there are some problems with consistency, etc.

Also, I think the open source culture can hold it back in many was as it pushes it forward. There's a huge amount of snarkiness and irrational fanboyism from many linux users as well as many open source leaders.

A lot of Linux developers just don't understand usability. They think that there's an absolute tradeoff between ease-of-use and complexity/power, but the dichotomy presented is a false one. Or they think that good guis are just a matter of being "pretty". Or that advanced users don't *need* no steenking good interface. As a result, a lot of decisions are made with bad taste. I think the Gnome project is pretty good as far as usability goes, I've switched back from a stint with KDE.

KDE4 is going to be freaking awesome. I can't wait to try it when it comes out.

I've tryed KDE a couple of times before. Once even for a whole hour when I was using Knoppix. Im sticking with gnome. I actually set Windows up on my computer as duel boot just in case I ever need to use it and i found it harder to get on the net than linux now that im used to linux. tragiclly it was a unpatched version of windows and was full of trojans with in 10 minutes.

But I do find to much of the attude of the linux community that dislikes people who don't know what they are doing. Which sucks, not every one wants to be a computer expert just to get the thing to work. They also think that command line is really easy and evey one should learn it instead of the gui. I think the command line is easier in some ways and faster but I still think that command line is a scary thought for most people.

Totally. Every time I go and look for support I get treated like I'm bothering them, or they answer a question with a tiny acronym that gets no google results, or one of my favorites:

(21.44.02) :Javid: I have ubuntu 5.10, how do I burn an ISO? Will I need to install anything or is support native?
(21.44.27) <monzie> nope

Oh no wonder they didn't help you. Sorry but that kinda is a silly question that doesn't make any sense. If you have Ubuntu 5.10 why are you trying to burn a ISO? Or do you just have ubuntu ISO and you want to find out how to burn it? And what the heck are you talking about with support native?

The point was he answered an "is problem X solved by Y or Z?" and he said "no" :p

I had an ISO and wanted to burn it to a CD from Linux, this is not a stupid question. Sorry I don't know all the correct acronyms yet, if I knew that crap I wouldn't need support -.-

I'll switch to linux once I figure out how to do more than piddle around in Ubuntu with the default setup. I tried updating Firefox and things got ugly. Also the comman-line stuff is far too vague and confusing.

I can help with updating and stuff in Fedora 4. I mite try ubuntu at some stage next week maybe. Im not sure what tools Ubuntu has. It may come with a tool called CD-writer but im not sure.

In Ubuntu (actually anything using GNOME/Nautilus) just right click on the ISO in the file manager and select "Write to disc". Also, if you put in a blank CD/DVD it pops up a dialog asking what you want to do for burning non-ISO stuff.

I generally use K3B for everything though.

I actually got the CD thing sorted, I had to download something to even get the "write to CD" option in file manager.

Gawd - feels like Slashdot in here with all the same, old, tired Windows/Linux kvetching.

Windows is Windows - it is fantastic for writing huge, interconnected software packages. It's familiar, but it can be a stone b***h to optimize code for it.

Linux is Linux - the wall between processes is much higher, and it's far more modular than Windows. Drivers are easier to write, since every bit of the kernel is documented, but a lot of the high-level application builders that let you quickly make complete software just don't exist.

Windows is like a early 80's Honda Civic - basic, relatively reliable, not exciting, and waaaaay to complicated under the hood.

Linux is like a Chevy truck - simpler to look at, a little less convenient, but you can order it a lot of different ways, and it's designed for work, but can still be used for commuting.

/me not indulging in flamewar anymore...

Yeah right, then why did you just make an inflammatory post? LOL

I'd rahter die then have to use command line.

Command line is easy

I have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to coding or command lines.

Hahaha..I like that analogy! It has a minor problem, you open the hood, see an enormous array of 20+ year old dry-rotted hoses and wires surrounding an old carburetor and think "It's a miracle this thing works AT ALL...I better just quit while I'm still ahead."

I'd say Linux is more like an 80s-90s German car.. Reliable, sophisticated, powerful, a little quirky, focused on the task at hand, made for enthusiasts, and beautifully engineered. But if something does go wrong, you better be very knowledgeable, or prepared to pay through the nose for somebody who is.