Slashdot Mirror
Rise of the 'Consumer' Linux Distribution
Hodge writes "Newsforge has an article discussing the potential for 'Consumer' Linux distro's, i.e. ones aimed at regular users rather than the Geek Elite. It's quite an insightful article, recognising that the vast majority of computer users just want a system that works and don't care about issues of open- or closed-source and don't even want to know about dependencies."
The goal of Linux should be to provide a useable, friendly operating system that is very cheap or free.
People don't have to know how to build an enginer to drive a car. They know that being able to open the hood and fiddle with the engine is dangerous if you don't know what you're doing, and to lock the car when you are away from it, that's common sense.
This common sense should come to computers as well. Locking them when you are away and not fiddling under the hood. However the option SHOULD be there for people who know what they're doing.
If Linux can bring that option and reduce the cost of new operating systems to a reasonable amount, THEN it will have achieved a respectable goal.
If more people use it because it is clearly the best choice, depending on distro, then Linux will be where we want it to be. Those of you who only use it as an OS because it's different, you will have an excuse to move on to bigger, better things.
"But I suspect some additional technical features/api's in X would be necessary in order to achieve the seemless resolution changing ala. Mac or Windows."
I guess you've never heard of XRandR. It allows on-the-fly resolution changing and screen rotation. The extension will be included in XFree86 4.3. Both KDE and GNOME are working on support for XRandR.
"This is the core problem with linux, and why the consumer wont use it until fixed. My parents and friends have problems running windows XP...do you think they could handle some of the even semi complex tasks of running a linux box? Highly doubtful at best."
These "problems" cannot be "fixed". Windows and Linux are general-purpose operating systems. It is impossible to make them easy for every single person out there without at least some education.
Tadaaa, that's where preinstallation and preconfiguration jumps in!
Complex tasks? What complex tasks? I setup a Linux box for my parents to surf the web. All they have to know is how to press the On/Off button, how to doubleclick on the icon of their account and how to use the browser.
That's it, no compiling, no editing configuration files: it just works.
The solution is not to make (semi) complex things easy, but to preinstall & configure the system to their needs so they don't have to do (simi) complex tasks in the first place.
Repeat the magic words: preinstallation and preconfiguration.
The ability to do these sorts of things exist. What I mean is any Windows functionality that a user likes can have a linux equivelant. All it really needs is some UI that the user is used to. The real issue is wether or not this functionality should be a part of the "core" system or should it be some sandalone application. Windows is so dominated by their explorer interface that it causes that one program to be a monster. The beauty of "unix like" os's is the modularity provided by either open standards or open software. This allows a programmer to create programs that modify the parameters of other programs or call them usefully or whatever. Now, with that said, the only reason that linux may currently not have all the things that people who use Windows are used to is that it just hasn't been done...yet. The reason is easily explained through the way oss is created. Usually an open source developer tackles a problem that they or their company is interested in. As a result of their work, they share that with others, especially since they have likely benefitted from other's oss work. If they or their employer is not interested in solving a specific probem, a program for that is never created. Making linux more "Windows like" has not been a priority for most os developers. To do that would take a company that is interested in making money off of such a venture. This, I beleive, is what the article speaks to (enter Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.)
End of Line.
Funny, when my manager hears "Linux" and "Open Source" (mainly from me), he gets immediately defensive. To him it means "unfamiliar", "different", and "not approved by Corporate". Makes my stomach turn.
It makes me sick when we have to sit in meetings and work around delays and problems caused by licensing issues imposed on us by software vendors. "Oh, we can't install that environment, we don't have enough licenses. We'll have to wait for the PO to go through on it before we can proceed." We have to budget in licensing that we may never use, but we will sit on licenses that we have paid for because we don't want to give them up. It's too hard to get them back, and we have the money in our budget already. Argggh. It is stupid and wasteful.
Most users don't give a damn about the philosophy behind the software.
They probably do more than they know. People get copies of Windows and Office and games from their friends all the time. They do it because they can't pay $$$$ for it, yet they need it. Managers and IT people want software that is reasonably priced without licensing hassles. (except in my case I guess) I'll bet that a lot of people would like the Open Source or Free Software philosophy if it was explained to them. They probably won't fight for it, or pursue it, but they would choose it. But even if they don't, or are never given the opportunity to, I am damn glad that *I* can choose it. It just needs more support from the people who make software so that the end user can get the programs they want.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.