Slashdot Mirror
Linux on the Tipping Point
Reader stormcoder wrote to mention an article on Enterprise Linux I.T. in which the author posits that even though Linux is built on a legend, the reality of Linux outstrips even the myth. From the article: "..the fact that Linux has traditionally been compared to Microsoft's Windows brand products and not the other Unix variants will most likely lead the general public to perceive all this as Linux sailing on to new horizons while Microsoft stalls out. This perceptual shift should totally reverse the previous mainstream view that Microsoft and Intel were somehow at the forefront of high technology computing -- thereby pushing Linux over the magic edge of a social tipping point."
All people want to know is if it can run their word processor, their games, and their stupid movies their friend send them.
Most basic home or small business MS systems ship with XP home edition, and you are in for a rude surprise the instant you try to connect it up to a home or office LAN.
My rights don't need management.
Tipping Point is defined in the article. If you didn't read it, don't comment.
People have a preference, I'm not bothered if more people use linux. It's good for me because of what I do, I'm not desperate to get everyone else using it.
Perception - although cosmetic - is the foundation of ideas. Ideas rule - not politicians. They are the office-boys of government. This change of ideas is where the world changes. Isn't it great to be there while IT is happening and be aware of it! Matt
Kickass 3d shooter games and support for devices.
Well, if people keep on guessing, eventually someone's going to be right. Right?
There are many varied reasons that Slashdotters hate Microsoft. But this brings up one of my pet peeves about the corporation, the perception that it's on the forefront of computing technology.
I remember as a young lad downloading a copy of Slackware on 12 diskettes, installing it, and having a revelation as I realised that there was something better than DOS on top of which we could build a GUI and desktop system.
It was a thing of beauty, to see this brand new thing called Linux which came with source code (gasp) and made DOS and Win3.11 look like the crap it was.
Imagine my devastation when I started reading history and found out that Linux was just continuing a then 20-year tradition of open source, stability, and multiprocessing. Then I had to watch the slow decline and shittification (to coin a word) of the industry as Microsoft became more and more powerful.
It was depressing to me to watch as person after person suffered through BSODs, memory mismanagement, corrupted data, etc. whilst I knew that sitting right there on my HDD, with no marketing clout, sat the answer.
Microsoft is navigated by some brilliant captains. But they're brilliant sociopaths, consistently destroying everything that is Right and Good about our industry.
I found myself apologising to users for the lameness of the software they were using, and unable to really provide them with any alternative.
It makes me a really happy person to look at Linux these days. Thanks to RMS, IBM, Novell, SuSE, RedHat, and others (the non-sociopathic brilliant people (fuck you, SCO)), Linux is looking really, really good today.
I'm actually finally considering migrating my wife off of Win32 (she types Chinese, and Chinese input under Linux was pretty useless up until this month) and onto Mandrake 10.2b3! Milestone.
Linux rightfully deserves the title of being on the forefront of technology. Microsoft? They were holding us back.
fifth sigma, inc.
Either Windows is the standard and its emulation the ultimate goal or Windows is junk to be ignored. Which is it Linux? The only people who have satisfactorily answered that question are the fine folks over at Apple. They've forged their own path while Linux strives to be "more like Windows".
Linux acceptance has been driven by its perceived political correctness in the mass media, itself an artifact of the legend of Torvalds
/. that is)?
Linux is politically correct now (outside
Fundamentally, everybody likes to be leading edge,
Geeks do. Businesses don't give a toss.
most of those who did replace a few Windows servers with Linux soon found that the software's quality led to much bigger benefits in terms of operational stability, support staffing and the overall integrity of their information systems.
Well gee, that's new. The fact is, small companies install and run Windows, and put up with the problems, because they just can't afford a "linux guy".
Most people agree that products like Sun's Java Latest News about Java desktop don't have as many features as Microsoft's integrated office suites, but people willing to give up some bells and whistles are finding the open-source products fully functional and free of the proprietary limitations built into Microsoft's products.
Because Java isn't proprietary?
As a result, the fact that Linux has traditionally been compared to Microsoft's Windows brand products and not the other Unix variants will most likely lead the general public to perceive all this as Linux sailing on to new horizons while Microsoft stalls out.
No, the general perception is that Linux is arcane, and Windows is kind of annoying but "easy". I'm talking about moms and pops' perception...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
If users who get their computer knowledge from fashion magazines see a change, it will be from Windows to a marketed, hip, device. The Mac being currently marketed to such segments almost as an "internet attachment" to your iPod makes it the most likely candidate for the fashionistas who are tech-clueless.
The class of managers and marketers who are tech-clueless and perceive the PC as a fancy addition to their typewriter or calculator may very well perceive Linux as the new and better upgrade to the PC.
One thing that's frequently downplayed is that Linux will run on both Mac and PC hardware. Showing off Linux running on these two hardware platforms will go a long way toward telling the tech-clueless that Linux goes well beyond traditional personal computers: both in abilities and in their lack of turf wars and platform exclusive tricks. (And if it helps enlighten a few politicians, judges, or patent attorneys about what an OS is, all the better)
Linux is the tech of tomorrow that can replace the dodgier tech that's being pushed today.
It can also be a sudden burst of mass insanity as mainstream public opinion gets caught up in a new myth like the "new economy" of the dot-bomb era. Such a one-sided definition totally misses the point of how or why such change (for which "paradigm shift" was the previous buzzword) occurs.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Linux has it right. Apple will forever be relegated to a niche market, and if that works for them, that's fine. However, the prospect of Linux is much greater. In order for something to appeal to the masses, who have been spoon-fed one particular operating system, you have to learn to speak their language. Once you do that, you can gradually coax them into your camp, but I don't think you'll get many takers if you insist that they speak your language. People are generally lazy - they'll take the path of least resistance.
I predict the following: Linux will never threaten windows on the desktop.
People want windows because:
1) They want everything to just work instantly. Windows does this, as far as the average user can tell.
2) They want access to all programs out there, just in case they ever need them. Just having web, email, and a word processor is not enough, because there is always a small chance that they might need to install something exotic two years down the road.
3) They want to be able to play games. Even my mother wants this, and she has only played two games in the last 10 years.
Sorry, but something really extraordinary is needed to even threaten Microsofts dominance, much less overtake it. Linux can hope to become as popular as Macintosh, but even that is very hard. Apple stuff is easy, remember?
It is very likely, however, that Linux becomes as dominant as Windows is on the desktop for everything that isn't a desktop (or has a gui). And this in itself is pretty awesome.
Will code a sig generator for food
I work in a rural Utah computer shop, and every day, I'm seeing Linux make inroads.
I've got about a dozen customers fully converted to it for desktop use. The downside is that these customers are no longer coming in every couple months for spyware and virus removal or other Windows fixes. Go figure.
MadOgre.com
Every year number of users grows for more than double.
I call that year of Linux. "Year of linux" term is not defined by M$ still being biggest (or how big share it has), but with increase number of linux users and servers (and in last years with profit that companies make with linux).
p.s. if new users would keep comming with this rate, people would have to increase their sex activity just to provide new linux users in about 20 years.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
User friendliness.
Cleaning up the kernel some.
Device manufacturer acceptance. (Too many manufacturers don't make drivers available like they do for Windows and Mac. Downloading them is okay in the short term, but this needs to change.)
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Linux is in exactly the same position, and the free software world needs to recognize this. Unlike Windows, Linux's monopoly was not created to exploit its users; unlike Windows, Linux's monopoly is not -really- exclusive (it is just Unix). But Linux's chief selling point is still mere compatibility -- with both hardware and software -- and because of the power of this inertia, Linux can succeed without actually being better. This is what makes Linux the next Windows.
Unix was a great system in 1970. It was a far, far better way to manage a computer than the most popular approaches at the time, and became successful because of this. It was a great contribution to computing.
Today, however, by all rational measures it should be obsolete. Nobody designing an operating system today would make it anything like Unix, unless they wanted it to be compatible with Unix. I don't want to get into specific critiques -- if you disagree on this point, then just ignore me. If, however, you see the myriad outdated approaches in the design of Unix, then you will realize the problem here.
Systems like Plan9 or EROS use designs obviously superior to Unix, and are destined to fail because of this, not in spite of it. If we do not figure out the problem here and fix it, we will be stuck with Unix for as long as it took to get rid of Microsoft -- maybe longer.
Ken Thompson said it thusly:
I'd have to agree.. all my nerd friends are at least interested in linux, whereas 5 years ago they thought it was too arcane and annoying and stupid. Attitudes are definitely changing.
This is why building a browser into the distro, rather than just using the "best of breed" or offering a couple options during install, it completely foolish to me.
I hate Konquerer, although it HAS gotten better. But I just hate having HTML rendered in my file browser.
Damnit, why does the Linux community have to copy every crappy assed idea of Microsofts?
I miss the days when KDE ran FAST and didn't have a lot of "prettiness". Instead of the community focusing on building a Counterstrike Killer, instead it's all about anti-aliased fonts (fine, they are nice, but is it that big deal?), bloated User Interfaces and a billion different distros.
Did I mention I hate Konquerer?
Begin modding me down. I'm used to it. (opinions on slashdot that don't fawn over the subject usually get modded down as trolls.)
Oh my gawd, they killed kenny's mod points!!!!
I don't know of anyone who considered linux a significant technological breakthrough. Its claim to fame has always been how it was "free." (even by people who don't understand the issues behind software freedom.) The only thing this article contributes is a tie-in with the latest jargon of the day "Tipping point." BTW I agree that BSDs should deserve more attention than linux, but I don't think articles like this will help achieve that.
I think we just found the ideal antonym for "beleagured".
It is difficult to read such mush cold sober.
To the general public, Unix has an artic remoteness, something Apple understands very well.
Microsoft and Intel brought computing to the masses. That was the social tipping point. It took computing out of the hands of the wizards, the nerds, the geeks.
In my experience no operating system does everything I want it to do out of the box, and Microsoft Windows and MacOS X only come close when I install a bunch of third-party software that didn't come with the system. Also, this entire framing of the debate ignores the far more important issue of software freedom (and many would, no doubt, cite the circular argument that this lack of debate on software freedom is proper and right because the mass audience doesn't know about software freedom).
People's choices are narrowed to favor things which proprietors can cater to. The framing of the issue excludes alternatives to proprietary software, effectively narrowing the allowed scope of debate. Free software OSes don't ship with many personal computers, and they aren't advertised to the degree proprietary software is, and they are often behind in features. But they excel in delivering software freedom--something proprietors cannot deliver at all. In many venues there is no discussion about what the free software community has been working on for the past two decades. Sometimes, if free software comes into play at all, it is just used to drive down the cost of some proprietary software (I recall reading a New York Times report which talked about a Microsoft memo that said something to the effect of "Lose no sale to Linux").
Perhaps if we did a better job of teaching the importance of valuing software freedom for its own sake, we would see this values reflected in more people's opinions (much to the ire of software proprietors).
Digital Citizen
How are websites going to make money if you a) don't subscribe and b) block the ads?
Can't you steer your eyeballs like the rest of us?
That was classic intercourse!
I read comments on Slashdot telling me that Linux has better support for devices than any other OS, and already has all the kick-ass 3D shooters. Doom 3, UT2004, and so on. Now you're saying it needs both.
.NET or Cocoa, that replaces the kludgery that is X11 and focus on the best usability we've ever seen. Get rid of that crappy start menu and taskbar Windows rip-off. Get rid of all those hideous fonts, redundant menu items (KDE ships with "Control Center", "Utilities," "System", and "Settings" as seperate menu items). Everyone needs to start over and do it right the first time. Where is the binary installer/uninstaller API? Better yet, where is the drag-and-drop installing that OS X has? Nope, let's rely on conflicting console package managers for another ten years. That'll bring the mainstream developers to port their products.
What Linux needs to dominate the desktop is one single unified desktop environment, based on a single universal API akin to
When you have ten versions of the same functionality, it's not "choice," it's redundancy. Most OSS people see things in black-and-white where all choice is good. There is moderation for everything, and you have to look at situations on a case-by-case basis. The desktop split that forces me to install two entire desktop environments just to be able to run all the apps out there is completely insane, and if some other company like Microsoft was doing it, everyone would be all over it.
Based on the obsession with KDE and GNOME in the Linux world, I don't see changes happening any time soon, though GNOME seems to be the one not afraid to break the mold and actually try different things for usability's sake. People bitch about Windows, and then when GNOME does something different, and according to all usability studies better, than Windows such as changing the button order or having a spacial finder, people bitch that it isn't close enough to Windows. It's gotten to the point that I've decided people don't really hate Windows at all. They just blindly hate Microsoft but want a Windows to use.
Just my opinion. I'm tired of hearing about how Linux is "almost there" every year, and it never happens because the attitudes and focus don't change. As far as I'm concerned (and this is the recently-converted Apple zealot in me speaking), OS X already beat the OSS world to the punch five years ago when it comes to GUIs on top of UNIX. KDE and GNOME feel like shallow 1998-era wannabes in comparison once you've used OS X all day.
You missed the point. Realize that you could s/Mepis/Ubuntu/ in both your post and your parent's and the meaning would be the same. Desktop-oriented Debian-based distros are niiiice.
Fedora is great, too, but people usually want to see what they're getting into before they install it. That means you want a live CD.
That's not really the problem. It has more to do with Linux as a game development environment totally lacking any good tools and debugging. Game developers don't want to have to make these tools themselves, that only hinders development times.
I have to disagree. The lack is not in code or tools to produce code. Linux does not really lack for game code -- it is at least as rich as the Windows world in available game libraries, and vastly richer in codebases to crib from. Some very extensive projects have been conducted, and very little has been built on them (Crystal Space is a great example).
The lack is in content -- audio, video, graphics, and even well-written English text. Almost every Linux game project I can think of has a severe lack of content.
On the Linux Game Tome today, if I search for top-rated games, the top-rated is Battle For Wesnoth. That game at one point used cribbed graphics from a commercial game, currently has a very limited 2d sprite set that would have been par-for-the-course in the Super Nintendo's heyday, and has character facial portraits that are atrocious (one more comment about the prince looking awfully fruity, and I think everyone will go insane). And this project is known for having rather good graphics for the Linux gaming world. I don't mean to bash the Wesnoth people (hell, I've hacked on the codebase), as they have a fun game. But the limiting factor is very definitely graphics.
Another game I've enjoyed is lincity. Good game, all open-source and not just a clone of a closed-source game -- but the graphics are reminicent of bad MSDOS game graphics.
After Wesnoth on the "top rated Linux games" list is Freeciv. Freeciv has graphics that are reasonable...for a decade-old game. It does not improve on the game it is cloning.
Next is BZflag, possibly the most popular 3d-accelerated multiplayer Linux game. It has incredibly simple graphics (note that 2.0 has improved things a bit). DOOM is really more graphically complex than BZflag. Again, fun, but it's simply not remotely able to compete with modern 3d games when it comes to texturing and modelling.
Next is Neverball. While this game has decent-looking textures, it also has no more than a handful of textures all told, perhaps a tenth or a hundredth of what a commercial, closed-source 3d game would probably have.
Next on the list is NetHack. NetHack is a terminal-based game (not that I think that this inhibits gameplay, as I just finished a four-hour stint playing Tales of Middle Earth), with extremely simplistic tile-based graphics. There have been a few attempts to improve things -- Falcon's Eye is a notable NetHack fork, with music and alpha-blended graphics -- but still nowhere near modern commercial-quality graphics. Now, as the NetHack aficionados among you know, NetHack can be a lot of fun, and while long-term replayability depends more on game logic than graphics, anyone who thinks that graphics and sound don't play a key role in making a game enjoyable is simply not being honest with themselves (and I would suggest that they try watching a horror movie with the sound off).
I am not demanding that open source developers do differently. I hack on games for the fun of it, and would not be interested in producing graphics, because I am not a good artist, or someone that finds creating game graphics fun. Good coders like donating their time -- perhaps because they are in a position that currently pays well and lacks enough employees that they do not need to compete as hard, and can afford to give away work as gifts for the sheer enjoyment. Artists work in a rather more competitive world (there are simply more people that want to be artists than there can be funded artists), and do not seem to be able to enjoy the same gift-based culture.
Another consideration is degree of work commitment. Code is largely opaque to the user, and differences between programmers large
- Manufacturers start releasing Linux drivers for their hardware along side of the Windows and MAC drivers
- Web sites stop building their sites to only work with IE on Windows
- PC manufacturers sell more systems with Linux pre-installed for the average user (which makes my job of playing everyone's Professional Geek easier).
- PC manufacturers reject the idea of hardware which *ONLY* works on Windows (read: winmodem, Windows only printers, etc.)
- It becomes easier to convince average users that yes, your little home PC really does work better (fewer viruses, spyware, etc.) with Linux
- Budget ISPs (like WalMart, BlueFrog, Nescape, NetZero, etc.) release dialers and connection utilities for Linux, so I don't have to custom configure a system if a friend wants to use a dial-up provider instead of spending $45/month for a Cable or DSL service he or she only uses once in a while
- At work, I don't have to fight with the IT group every time they try to re-image my workstation with the latest "Standard" XP image, or explain yet again why I really *DON'T* need to update my anti-virus software on a daily basis in order to keep their network free of virus threats.
I could go on, but these are a few reasons off the top of my head why I think it really does matter that Linux is continuing to gain traction on the desktop. There really are advantages to gaining momentum. Linux was my primary OS long before it was "Popular" or "Politically Correct", but I can see plenty of advances that have come about because Linux is now on everybody's radar screen.Do I think that 2005 will be the magical "Tipping Point" for Linux? I don't really think we are going to see a mad rush for Linux on computers sold at stores like CompUSA, Best Buy and WalMart, or even online stores like Dell, but there is certainly a smell of change in the air...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Huh??? Which century are you living in? I used to build custom kernels all the time, but it's been several years since I had to compile a kernel. I suspect that the average user needs to recompile a Linux kernel almost as often as they need to re-compile their Windows kernel. Granted, most distros come with horribly bloated kernels with every module in the universe installed, and building a custom kernel is much more efficient. but it is hardly necessary.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
"...single-handedly invented a computer operating system..."
Not a soul helped him...
So someone should come up with a 'PornOS" distro? Market it as the way to surf porn safely and then people will be installing Linux everywhere and not even realizing it. Brilliant!.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Non-computer people see the computer as a single entity - it's not quite Windows that crashes, it's "the computer" (but they do seem to know that Microsoft is to blame). They really don't give a crap about the distinction between the OS and the computer, so they may see it as more reasonable to get a whole new computer rather than perform what they perceive as "brain surgury" to put Linux on it (and which Linux should it be? Red Hat, Linspire, Gentoo, etc... kind of confusing for someone who doesn't follow this stuff and isn't quite sure what role Linux plays on their computer).
So here's the logic as I see it: now that a Macintosh can be had for a reasonable $500, and getting a new, "different kind" of computer seems like the best solution, the Mac Mini seems more likely to replace Windows on the average desktop than Linux. Everyone's heard of the Apple Macintosh, and Mac software does sometimes appear in retail stores (besides Apple stores). It seems to be selling well enough.
Now, we know that it's cheaper to install Linux on your existing hardware, but just try to put yourself in the shoes of average, don't-care-about-computers-they're-just-a-tool person and imagine how they see things.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Horse manure. Another case of history being written by the victors. Computing had already been taken out of the hands of the wizards (due more to Wozniak and Jobs than anybody) when IBM came along, and, through a series of accidents, settled on Microsoft and Intel as the core of what was destined to become the industry standard personal computer architecture.
They very easily could have picked CP/M on Z80 or OS/9 on 6809, and the history of personal computing would have been completely different. Intel and Microsoft brought nothing to the computing masses that the rest of the flourishing industry wasn't able and eager to bring. They just happened to receive IBM's blessing, and nothing more.