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

That would never work...

[eurleif]

What makes Linux so great is that there are so many distros, and I can choose the one I like. One distro can never compare to hundreds of them.

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

[Gleef]

While Bruce Perens seems to be talking more about development, not distribution (you can't really develop assuming Live CD's, or else your stuff might not work well on full systems), your point that Live CD's are incredibly important for evangilism is a good one.

Also, note that the most popular Live CD's either are Knoppix or are based on Knoppix. Knoppix itself is based on Debian, so supporting Debian is supporting Live CDs.

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

[swillden]

Honestly why would someone running XP Home/Pro migrate to linux?

Here are a few reasons that I've seen:

• Because they've had a conscience attack about using pirated software, but don't want to spend the money to buy a legitimate copy.
• Worms/viruses, like you said.
• An interest in trying something new. A lot of people who aren't geeks, per se, still like to fiddle with computers.
• A dislike for Microsoft (usually imparted to them by some nearby geek).
• The idea that maybe they'd like to "work on computers", along with a realization that with the growth of Linux there's a good chance to get in "on the ground floor".
• A desire to have something that "just works" and isn't constantly getting screwed up, or intimidating them with zillions of options they don't understand (this takes a geek to configure a fixed-function Linux install).
• Need for a file server, router, NAT gateway, etc that runs well on their ancient machine ('cause they just bought a new one with XP).
• Simple curiosity, wanting to see what all the fuss is about.
• Because that's what came pre-installed on the cheap machine they just bought, and it seems to work okay for them.

Those are off the top of my head, and from comments from real Windows users who are using/toying with Linux. I'm sure you can think of some more if you work at it. Few of the above reasons are adequate to justify a switch on their own, but several of them taken together often are.

IN OTHER NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs unexpectly announced today he thinks you should use a Macintosh.

Bill Gates made an interesting proposal that everyone use windows.

Scott McNealy outlined a plan he has in which everyone uses Solaris.

Larry Ellison, in a widely-publicized press conference, stated that everyone should give him money.

More on these sudden and shocking developments as news unfolds.

Odious

[Sanity]

He said the companies will also welcome an alternative to Red Hat and other commercial versions of Linux, which come with "odious" terms, limiting the number of seats and requiring expensive service contracts that are voided if users attempt to modify the software.

What is odious about that? How can RedHat be expected to support an operating system when they have no idea what modifications might have been made to it from the their version? The whole point of having a standardized version of the OS is to make support easier. Refusing to support versions of RedHat that have been modified from their default configuration isn't odious, it is a common sense precaution against your support staff wasting vast amounts of time.

Debian as the reference system

[Dionysus]

I said it before, and I'll say it again:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69340& cid=6329 689

One of the main reasons why GNU/Debian is perfect for a reference system, is that stable doesn't change that often.

Debian Woody (3.0) was released July 2002, with an update December 2002. How many version of Mandrake, SuSe, Gentoo or RedHat has come out since then?

If you are a developer, you really don't want a moving target like the other distributions. You really want to have stable target over some period of time.

Note that, even if Debian becomes the reference system, it doesn't mean that RedHat or SuSe, Gentoo can't have never libraries or KDE, or GNOME on their system. It just means that at the very least, they need compatible libraries installed by default.

And no, LSB is not enough. That is just a voluntary paper, and with no reference system, you still would have to test the major distributions to make sure your program is working.

With a working reference system, like Debian, you would only need to test against one distribution.

my Linux newbie comment

[holy_smoke]

You also have to make it painless to do things like install/remove software and install/remove drivers.

I have been patiently trying to build up and use my Suse 8.2 system.

My biggest complaints so far?

- I don't want to have to do black magic command line crap to install my NVIDIA drivers
- Although I definitely agree with the root/user separation, its a pain in the a$$ to keep getting assaulted with a root password prompt when I want to change a system setting (flame away)
- many of the programs don't seem polished; that is, they seem to crash at odd times or don't do what they said they would when I hit 'ok'. (??)
- the interface needs to be more polished for the average user who doesn't want to understand the technical aspects of what a link is or what HDA1 is...

I LOVE that Linux exists, and I am growing to love it more....BUT...I am not an "average" user. I am somewhere in the haze between advanced Windows weenie and low level Linux novice.

I don't care how many LiveCDs you ship to my father-in-law or my wife (as examples). If they can't install drivers and programs, configure their systems, and navigate their PCs _easily_ and through the GUI _only_ you won't have an ice-cube's chance in He11 of getting them to use Linux. Oh - and if they can't buy software (games) for it at Best Buy you're screwed too.

Average users want a tool that looks pretty, does neat things, and makes their lives easier/more entertained. They don't give a rat's behind about shell scripts, Xfree, Xserve, CUPS, gcc or whatever. It just confuses them and turns them OFF to the product.

Hope you find these comments contructive - they are not meant to assault.