Perens: Unite behind Debian, UserLinux

An anonymous readers writes "Infoworld is running a report on the Desktop Linux Conference, at which Bruce Perens suggested that in order to get Linux to the enterprise desktop, the Linux community should base their efforts on one single distribution... based on Debian. Perens went on to say that enterprises will be willing to pay Linux companies to engineer versions of Linux to suit their needs, but that the base distro should remain free. He suggested that by 2006, 30% of enterprise desktops will run Linux." Here is a wired story with more information about his proposed UserLinux project.

Comments

Unite behind Live CD's

[corebreech]

If they're running Debian, then that's great. But you need to put Linux into the hands of the masses if you want to take over the desktop and the best way to do that is to seed the planet with Linux Live CD's with the same fury that AOL soils the planet with their CD's.

No gcc, no including twelve different versions of AWK; just the kernel, KDE or Gnome (pick just one), OpenOffice, games, and all the rest of the shit that makes everything go.

Right now, when you say "Linux" to a layperson, they don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A Live CD is a painless way for them to find out.

We can rebuild him. We have the technology.

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[KikassAssassin]

KDE or Gnome (pick just one)

As a new Linux user myself, I'd suggest KDE over Gnome if you want to draw new people in. Gnome is an excellent interface, but by my experience KDE seems much more familiar to someone who is used to the Windows environment, and overall it has a somewhat more polished feel to it. That familiarity will make your average user who's never used anything but Windows before much more likely to try it out, rather than giving up from the start because everything looks different than what they're used to.

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[FatherOfONe]

It's funny you mention cost and the "mass users".

If Windows XP was NOT bundled with their computer OR they had to pay extra for it, then I believe that a small portion of the "mass" would switch. The same small "mass" of people who drive an extra 10 miles to Wallmart to save 10 cents on their soft drinks.

I was just having a discussion with a teen age relative of mine who loves Microsoft because one of his relatives works there. He has NO intention of ever using anyting but Microsoft. So I broke it down this way.

He will spend $600 for Office, $100-$300 for Windows XP. So lets go low and say that is $700. I won't go in to continual upgrade cost, but it should be mentioned. So he will spend $700 or more than someone who runs Linux and Open Office. Both would do the job for what he needs. So if he went with Linux he could....
1. Buy a new PS2 and some games AND
2. Buy a better video card AND
3. Buy a better hard drive AND
4. Buy a faster processor AND
5. Buy a new GameBoy with Games.

So I asked him... Wouldn't you like to have all that stuff? I do with the money I saved by not running Microsoft Office and XP at home. (I don't own a gameboy but he got the idea).

Cost does matter with Linux a lot for the masses. There needs to be a distro out there that is free or near free. There is a huge Linux market for the PC users who shop at Wallmart...

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[scalis]

I am not sure I agree that just because KDE looks more like MS Windows it means the users will find it easier to work with. Siemens Business Services did a study on this a while back (story was posted on slashdot too) Part of it reads:

"Before settling on Ximian, Siemens evaluated plain vanilla Gnome and KDE as well. Siemens found KDE to be more "Windows-like" than Gnome, but that led to problems when non-technical users expected a more Windows-like experience. Gnome, particularly Ximian's version, was "different enough" to set user expectations that the experience would be less like Windows, which led to fewer adoption problems"

Anti-Redhat FUD but still a good point

[Jagasian]

It seems like there has been allot of anti-Redhat FUD lately. While I have always been a Debian fan, and I agree that every distro maker should base their distro on Debian, all this crap about Redhat leaving a hole in the consumer market because they made Redhat Linux a community project that is still heavily guided and sponsered by Redhat... that just smacks of anti-Redhat FUD.

Truth is that Redhat Linux 10 was released several days ago, and for trademark reasons it is called Fedora Core 1. Anyone who has used Redhat 8.x or Redhat 9.x, will be able to tell that Fedora Core 1 is Redhat 10.

I would love to see one internet based community developed meta-distrution of Linux, with one comprehensive package repository. This would be the Linux standard. Then companies that want to make a newbie-friendly Linux could cherry-pick the best software packages, make custom themes, and tweak everything and also provide support.

In my opinion, the thing that Redhat 8 through Fedora Core 1 do really great is that they cherry-picked a nice set of software packages, made a nice theme for the desktop, and put everything together into one nice coherent package.

Note that the good things that Redhat does with its distro do not conflict with having a Debian-foundation, and the fact that Redhat has decided to fracture the internet community because it refuses to have Fedora Core 1 be a customized Debian is just plain silly!

Other distros have shown the power of using a Debian based core: Knoppix, Libranet, and Lindows, to name 3 distros, all accomplish something slightly different.

1. Knoppix is a live CD based Linux distro with completely automatic hardware detection. Knoppix is a great toy, a great way to advertise Linux, and it makes for an uber rescue disk.

2. Libranet aims at being a general purpose desktop/server distro, and it adds value by greatly simplifying the installation and maintenance of the OS.

3. Lindows is supposed to be a newbie friendly / user-friendly Linux distro that emulates the look-n-feel of Windows. It is aimed at a large target market of casual computer users that want to save a few bucks.

So please tell me why Redhat couldn't use a Debian foundation for Fedora Core? All they had to do was create a small community layered ontop of the Debian community. Their job would be to cherry-pick software packages from the comprehensive apt repository that Debian already has, and integrate it all into one coherent system by tweaking settings and theming applications.

In conclusion, lets drop this Redhat ditched desktop Linux crap, and focus on the fact that Redhat is duplicating effort by not basing their community developed distro on Debian. It is starting to remind me of Christianity with its many demoninations.

Re:That would work...

[pyros]

Well, the thing about Debian is it's only user-friendly if your hardware works on it out-of-the box. My laptop has an Intel i830M chipset. If I want 1024x768 resolution with anything over 8 bit color, I must either user another disrtibution or run Debian unstable with experimental packages to get XFree86 4.3. I installed Debian unstable on my 5 year old PC this month and had to get on IRC to get my USB mouse working. Then after installing the 2.4.22 SMP kernel, I had to get back on IRC to get access to my IDE drives! These two should have been automatic years ago. As it sits now I can burn CDs in ATAPI mode, which is dog-freaking slow compared to the SCSI emulation mode, which I can't find any documentation on configuring.

Just to give you a little background, I've been running Linux at home, starting with Slackware, moving to Red Hat, and trying out Debian, for 7 years. I've managed a remote datacenter of 10 Linux boxes with nothing but ssh and the occasional use of a cyclades terminal server for when things get really fubar (like the nfs server got a little hosed and i couldn't log into anything remotley). So I'm no stranger to building my own kernels and configuring hardware by hand, I just find Debian makes it so much harder than it needs to be.