Re: Linux has a long way to go before it becomes the major OS
From: A.N.Other (spamtrap_at_hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:28:05 GMT
"james" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> In article <email@example.com>,
> Daneel Olivaw <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >If something goes wrong with the transmission in an autotransmission car
> >that one uses as a black box, then s/he has to pay $ Godawfulamount to a
> >mechanic, but if you know more abt the innards, maybe you can repair it
> >yourself. Same applies to compus running Linux. More control over
> Extend the analogy to include all the tools in the machine shop as well
> as the patterns for the hypoid gears, and a forge to make them, and
> you're on the right track. More than just control, but a whole enabling
I think everybody in this thread is missing some important points, 1) what
defines a "major OS", 2) why did the originator of the thread think that
Linux is not a "major OS'?
How do you define anything as being a "major" player? To my mind its market
share that defines whether a product is a "major". If this is true then
Linux is not a major OS. Some of you will disagree with me on this and
define "major" as the quality of the product, but think back to the
Betamax/VHS battle, Betamax was clearly better technically but lost the
market share and is no more. If Linux is to really become a major OS then it
has to increase its market share significantly.
Can Linux become a major, as currently offered I do not think that it is
ever likely to become a major OS. Bear in mind that to the average pc user,
the pc is an appliance not a computer, they do little or no "computing"
unless your definition of computing is WEB browsing and email. For these
people configuring Linux and all its various bits and pieces is far too
complicated. They want a "plug and go" experience and whether we like it or
not, M$ Windows offers that in spades. So far the closest I have seen in the
Linux world is Xandros, or maybe Knoppix.
If Linux is to become a major player, and by that I mean +33% of the market,
then it has to become much more user friendly. I personally believe that
somebody should produce a distro which offers nothing more than M$ windows,
a desktop OS with none of the plethora of choices that most distros
currently offer, the system should come pre-configured and to the largest
extent possible auto install. I don't see this happening, not until the
Linux community can set some real standards for how a system is to be
configured, things like where does the OS puts its files, where do apps put
theirs where are global setting stored where are per user setting put,
providing simple easy to use user interfaces, getting rid of the dependence
on the command line and consoles.
If we don't make Linux much, much more user friendly very soon then it will
be become the OS of the back room, and of geeks like myself, and ultimately
the Betamax of the pc world.