Linux Five Years Away From Mainstream

wellington wrote to mention a ZDNet blurb about a Gartner group study. Gartner indicates that 'mainstream' use of open source in IT environments may be 5 years away. From the article: "Gartner's latest Linux 'hype cycle' report shows that open source is halfway to maturity but warns the biggest test will be whether it can demonstrate the necessary performance and security to function as a data centre server for mission-critical applications. Leading-edge businesses are generally still in the early stages of Linux deployments but Gartner expects increased commercialisation and improved storage and systems management for the operating system by the end of 2005, with Linux being used primarily for WebSphere and infrastructure applications on mainframes and web services on blades and racks."

Comments

Nuclear Fusion

[AKAImBatman]

Did you know that nuclear fusion is only 20 years away? Just like it was in 1950! (No, I'm not skeptical. Not at all.)

When I wrote my article and its follow-up on directions I think a Linux Distribution could take, I expected that there would be some controversy. However, I hardly expected the shear number of responses to the effect of, "Linux is great as it is! Never change it!"

Which is surprising, because the very point of the Linux design is that different distributions were supposed to be able to explore completely different tracks. There shouldn't be any "one distro to rule them all", yet many of the respondants demanded exactly that! (Amusingly, they couldn't agree on *which* distro to rule them all.)

When I pointed this out to many responders, and mentioned the fact that I'm merely attempting to suggest a Desktop environment that would help Linux adoption, I got another surprising response: "Who said we wanted regular users? Linux is for the elite. If you're too stupid to recompile your kernel or read all the scattered HOWTOs, you're too stupid to use Linux!"

I understand that the Linux community is wide and varied, but this sort of attitude is not helping anyone. In fact, this sort of attitude causes Linux to take two steps back for every one step forward it takes in the market.

It's normal that Linux users will disagree. That's why Linux is just a kernel, KDE/GNOME are just desktop environments, and the GNU System is just a collection of Unix utilities. It's so the end distributions can build the OS necessary to meet their users. But such a design DOES NOT require that users berate each other! Rather, Linux users should understand that "idiot" users using an "idiot" distribution is okay. Gentoo users can still recompile Gentoo to their hearts content even though Ubuntu exists. Ubuntu users can still use Ubuntu workstations even though Fedora exists. Fedora users can still a have 100% "Free as in socks and gun ownership" OS even though SuSE exists.

There's no reason for this OS bigotry. It's causing confusion in the marketplace, and generally turning the public off to Linux. Just pick the distro you like, and be happy for other people who use something that works for them. K?

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[adarn]

holy shit, an intelligent first post.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[AKAImBatman]

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

If people can make some money off of Linux then good luck to them, but Linux should not change to meet some commercial wish list.

Why not? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet commercial desires? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet home user desires? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet scientific researchers' desires?

What is wrong with different Linux distros to meet the desires of different markets? Isn't that the entire point of Linux? "It's just a kernel," we say. But then the community berates anyone who attempts to reuse that kernel in Community Unapproved Ways(TM). How does that help anyone?

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[LiquidCoooled]

Linux is complicated.

Not in the software thats available, but in sheer choice of software.

MS Has Windows XP home and Windows XP Professional, designed for the general required use, its easy to tell epopel to get the correct version.

99.9999% of home users don't ever need or want a c compiler, or 4 different word processors, or 13 ways to do the same thing, they want the most efficient simple way. The list goes on, but people suffer from too much choice, its like going into a foreign sweetshop and not knowing the names of the products.

If I could just tell somebody to go and get the "Home" version of Linux - from whichever vendor was currently hot then it would be easier to get people to switch.

After they have gotten used to their version and know their way around, then they can start customising it and adding all the perfect bits, but until that point, its just overpowering.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[l3v1]

Linux users should understand that "idiot" users using an "idiot" distribution is okay

I'm also fed up with some things, like ignorant idiotic "Linux [distro] reviews" and "Linux will be ready for [substitute as required] in 5 years" rants.

For the record, I have nothing against making one or more distribuions which would target the joe6pack masses, the "idiot" user base who doesn't know a kernel from an OS, a computer from a monitor, etc.

What I don't like is when dozens of reviews say Linux is a piece of junk because the usual computer-illiterate is not able to click his/her way through the installation process, because they can't be expected to know their hardware, and so on, coming to the conclusiont hat Linux is not ready for anything.

What I'd like my point to be here is that Linux is ready for a huge variety of things. Literally. It just takes a few energetic people and some funding to prepare a 6pack-friendly disto. Besides that, it is already ready to be used for datacenters, web server farms, clusters, developer workstations, and I could just go on with this, and many of you could even name exemples for them with known big players to back up the claims.

Stating anything that sounds like "Linux is/isnot/will/willnot be ready for this/that in 1/2/3/... years/ever" is just plain fraggin' stupid and idiotic. There is no "linux". Linux is what you make of it. One could correctly state that there does not exist a specific Linux distro that would specifically target the 6pack clicking crowd, but one should not state that such a distro could not be developed.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

hi RMS, long time no posting. Since you're out hunting, may inquire as to when will Gnome finally be ported to Emacs? I want to get rid of that pesky Xorg server and have my full GNU stack already.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[cyborg_zx]

As any businessman can tell you, scaring away the customers is not good for business. :-)

Indeed, but Linux is not a business and the people in the community you are referring to are not business-like. Unfortunately there's very little one can do if these people cannot be reasoned with. We just have to try our best to be more vocal in our helpfulness then they are in their scorn.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[b1t r0t]

Yeap, use FreeBSD. Problem solved, except of course you still have to figure out which desktop environ to run :)

I hear there's this really nice one called "Aqua". They're even porting it to other architectures now.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[Rhys Hardwick]

I agree with some of what you are saying, but disagree whole-heartedly with others. Whenever I talk to people who have no idea about linux, I tend to get a lot of interest from the fact you can _choose_ what program you want to use. They like the idea that if one program doesn't suit you, you can choose from a whole host of others. One good example is word processors: OOo and KOffice are designed to appeal to different people. KMail and Evolution suit different people in different ways(in fact I use both depending on what I am doing). I personally love that choice, and new users seem excited by it. I also think the same of distributions. Gentoo is not meant for newbies. Try Linspire or Ubuntu. What perhaps we need is easier to access information for those wanting to start linux on what distribution is for them. I hate it when people say "They're all different, you'll just have to try them all!!" That's ridiculous for new users. Someone stick their neck out and say, bold and clear, try this one!

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[Spy der Mann]

And a one liner doing an ad-hominem attack got a +4 Insightful. Wonderful.

Perhaps you should read the ACTUAL content of his blog, and the responses to it, before criticizing blindly. His point wasn't to advertise his blog, but to show two particular pages in it.

Besides, his point was valid, wasn't it? And it's not the first time someone posts in his blog/journal about Linux not being user-friendly enough. I'd post a link to my /. journal, but I don't want to be accused of "slashvertising".

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[zootm]

Out of general curiosity, were there any positive responses to your article? Have any people offered to start projects and help implement some of your proposed changes?

I'm not an experienced developer in "low-level" languages like C or C++, but I'd like to help out wherever I can. I know the GNOME Storage project is working on some things similar to some of your suggestions, but otherwise I liked your article and I've got a strong inclination to help out with any projects like this, so it'd be useful to know where I can help...

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[AKAImBatman]

So why are you paying attention to one person's ideas as if they were important?

Marketing. As I was attempting to communicate in my original post above (though perhaps not with complete success), the perceived attitude of the Linux community is one of elitism. So even if Linux distros currently meet all the critera of a Windows replacement, many users will avoid Linux simply because they don't want to deal with the community.

As a result, all this "it's our toys, go away" nonsense is counterproductive to the stated goal of spreading freedom (as in chili peppers and nonsensical ranting*) through software.

* Sorry, I always have fun coming up with new pairings for the "freedom" definitions. Someone should make a game out of it. ;-)

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[LWATCDR]

"Linux is complicated."
Windows is complicated. Why do I have to spend hours helping telling people to install Adware and spybot?
Why do have spend time fixing busted registry entries?

Linux on my Tivo just works. Linux on my router at home just works. No mucking about with service packs or any of that junk.
Good grief too much choice in Software? I thought that is why people like Windows. There are a lot more than 4 word processors for Windows and frankly a lot more than 13 ways to do the same thing.
If you want to tell someone to just get the "Home" version of Linux then tell them to pick up Linspire. If they want a free version and they can read then Ubuntu is great. The only thing I find lacking is you have to jump through some hoops to get all the multimedia stuff because of twisted copyright laws in the US.
BTW I would love it if Ubuntu would have a for pay version with all that in it already. It it was say $10 or $12 I would buy it to give to friends and family.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[piquadratCH]

Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet commercial desires?

RHEL?

Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet home user desires?

Ubuntu?

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[Kadin2048]

I just wanted to second what you're saying.

As someone who has been a Linux newbie repeatedly over the years, by virtue of periodically installing some distro, trying to get it to work, getting it 90% there and then getting hung up on some random bit of hardware and eventually getting frustrated and going back to my Mac, the lack of coherent established opinions is difficult to work with.

In my longest (and still running) experiment with Linux, on a home server, I went with Debian because I thought it would avoid RPM dependency hell that drove me nuts in previous tries. In retrospect, I think this was a good move -- I'll never use anything that doesn't have apt-get again. However I'll often ask a question on how to set something up or edit a config file, and get the response "Well, that's just because Debian sucks and is broken. Use [insert distribution here] instead."

It's fine to have multiple distributions. It's fine for people to have opinions on which distribution is best. But advocating that others switch distributions constantly in response to what ought to be minor problems doesn't do a lot to inspire confidence by new users in an OS.

Also, I think a lot of users go too far the other way -- so on one hand you have distribution zealots who loudly proclaim that theirs is better and yours clearly sucks, for any reason or none at all, while on the other the people who actually have a soapbox to stand on (in trade magazines, established web sites, etc.) generally refuse to take an opinion on distros one way or another. Once in a while I'll see someone take a wishy-washy stance as to 'this distribution might be a good one' but there's very little clear guidance for new users. If you have an opinion based on real experience, for god's sake say it. But if you just like your distribution because it's yours, shut up.

Okay, I'm done.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[jacksonj04]

Wrong. There are people who would much rather use a more secure OS than Windows, and know about Linux, but really just cannot be bothered working around some of the more ass-backwards systems. I can do things in Windows within minutes that take a good half hour on Linux. Now, I agree with the practice improving speed but some things just do not work between distros, whereas Windows does.

Personal choice would make a difference when both are truly as easy to use as each other. Until then, it's too much effort for entrenched users to switch (although it is slowly getting better).

At the moment the desktop lineup is OS X, Windows, Linux. For servers it is Linux, Windows, OS X.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[.sig]

Reading this post and the thread that goes with it makes me wonder if anyone else out there bothers to RTFA...
If you even read the summary here on /. rather than hust the headline you'd see that the article is about linux being 5 years away from mainstream in IT environments. No mention of joe sixpack or your grandma not knowing how to use linux.
They are 2 VERY different things, makes me wish I could mod the whole thread off-topic... (and redundant)

[Personally, I agree with the artice, linux is already moving fast in the IT sector. Depending on how you define 'mainstream' it could already be there. IMO that's where it belongs anyway. I know I definately prefer to work in a *nix environment]

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[ifwm]

"Linux is the kernel, not the OS."

While this may be true, it is not accurate.

What do I mean? When people discuss "Linux" they are talking about the OS that is built on top of the kernel. Yes it's only the kernel that is Linux, but that semantic battle was fought and lost a long time ago.

Linux is an OS now. Carrying on with "it's not an OS it's a kernel" talk is a waste of time.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[Penguin]

they want the most efficient simple way

Or at least just the same way (as their neighbour, as at work, et cetera).

Even though one might laugh that one should access "Shut down" via "Start" in Windows, this is only an issue the first couple of times. People know how to shut down their computer by now. 10 years of shutdown placed at the same location has clarified that. This is only an concern the first time. The only people who claim they can't find "Shut down" are people who would like to make a point about intuitive UIs.

In that case it doesn't matter whether another OS has a more efficient way of finding the "Shut down" command. Another distribution could have an even more efficient way of shutting down the computer. But it wouldn't be the same way.

Your point about 13 ways of doing the same thing reminds me of a bunch of poor guides. "You can do this in eight different ways" - the obvious response would be "I don't want to do it in eight different ways! I just want to do it in one way" (and maybe afterwards learn about other ways). The issue is that people would often like to tell everything at once in fear of favoring a specific product.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[shaitand]

"The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."

Developers are only a small part of the community and are not ranking members over anyone else. It is a developers elitist attitude that makes you assume that, please refer to the definition listed above that clearly demonstrates that being elitist has nothing to do with making demands.

The elitism the GP is referring to is spread across the entire community. That means Linux users, testers, documentation writers, technical writers, and all the classes of developers and maintainers and comment cleanerupers. None of these individuals have a right to feel they rank higher than any of the others.

And the community has no right to believe their tech savyness across the board makes them superior to those who have to struggle to figure out how to operate a mouse.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[shaitand]

You're both wrong. Linux is a kernel and a kernel is an OS. What you are both referring to as an OS is actually an OS distribution.

The whole misconception is due to vendors that sell distributions and refer to them as OSes because the two are never seperated (Windows, MacOS, etc).

For instance, loading Bash and GNU utils does not transform solaris into a different OS. The OS interacts with the hardware, not the user.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[hackstraw]

Linux is complicated.

Oh really?

How is it that millions of people use it every day without even knowing that they are using it?

The Tivo was so revolutionary and user friendly that it has become a brandname/product synonym like jello or kleenex.

The Linksys WRT5x series of wireless routers are some of the most commonly used end user products of its type, and it runs linux.

People use google millions of times daily.

People use millions of websites that run Linux daily.

Linus was even surprised to buy a digital picture frame for his wife and found out that it runs Linux.

Seems like Linux is pretty mainstream to me.

Oh, the infamous Linux on the desktop is that what mainstream means?

The issues there are simple. There is not a compellingly different or better GUI subsystem and there is a lacking supply of easy to install and use software.

As soon as those two issues are taken care of, linux will be mainstream on the desktop, otherwise its on embedded systems and servers where it is currently better suited.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[einhverfr]

Reading this post and the thread that goes with it makes me wonder if anyone else out there bothers to RTFA...
If you even read the summary here on /. rather than hust the headline you'd see that the article is about linux being 5 years away from mainstream in IT environments. No mention of joe sixpack or your grandma not knowing how to use linux.

Hmmm.... What percentage of web servers run Linux?

What percentage of DMZ hosts run Linux?

What percentage of closed email relays run Linux?

THese are all mainstream IT environments and Linux is quite capable there.

Now, if you are talking large database managers, LDAP infrastructures, etc. there is still a little ways to go. But it is still possible today (just not as mature as the above examples).

Gardner makes one extremely serious error in this study: they underestimate the resources that IBM, SGI, and other traditional big-iron vendors are throwing at Linux. I would not be surprised of, in 5 years, IBM is retiring AIX in favor of Linux.

Just my $0.02

As for the corporate workstation, I think 6-8 years is a good estimate (not a question of whether Linux is ready for the desktop but a question of when people will decide to migrate and how long these migrations take).

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[agrippa_cash]

I've spent a fair amount of time on the Gentoo boards, and am suprised by how many people are using other distros and how much relevant help they get. I can't remember ever having seen the hostility mentioned above.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[keltor]

Hate to point this out, but the FreeBSD is part of the BSD community that has become just as fragmented as the Linux community. Originally they had the same kernel, but now you have the NetBSD kernel, the OpenBSD kernel, the DragonflyBSD kernel, the Darwin kernel on microkernel, the MacOSX we're sorta the same thing as Darwin but we added a bunch of weird crap to piss off the OSS Nazis, and probably some other BSDs that do weird stuff. So stop this we are an all in one package crap. (Oh I forgot to mention GENTOOBSD!!!) ((ooooh and i forgot to mention the fact there are 3 types of FreeBSD))

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[budgenator]

desktop's are for normal users, those people who aren't realy interesting in wringing the last iota of performance out of a machine and typical know enough about one or two applications to get their basic job done even if they are doing things the hardway. Power user's want a Workstation, Desktop users don't fit Linux well, and Workstation users don't fit Windows well.

I'm a LaTex junky, I'm helping the wife with a paper, so I install MiTek on her computer, permissions are screwed up so I just copy a couple files to ./ bottaboom battabing LaTeX is working on WinXP SP2, next do some googling and copy some research into the shared folder, next day I can't open thing in the shared folder, so I list the directory, the files I tried to open Have No Owner! I can't even open them logged in as admin. Next after research on MS's knowelge base, I try to fix it by turning off simple file sharing, and turning on network file sharing, I go through it step by step, click by click as per Microsoft and hit a dead-end, the tab I need isn't there! These windows people think I'm somekind of computer genius, but the truth is the thought that people who both think I'm a computer genius, and put up with the silly bullshit inherent in using windows just scares me; I'm much more comfortable to say to my Dad, "Larry and Bobbie are MSCE's, you should ask them" then try to deal with actualy making Windows work like a real OS. I'm more comforatble reding 3 HOWTOs 2 Magazine articles and a website FAQ to get something difficult working in Linux and eventualy sucede, than I am in Windows doing something that is supposed to be easy, but in reality is impossible.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[LordoftheWoods]

btw, I was not asking a serious question, only posting my remarks. Linux is not linux quite often, which makes googling for problems quite a problem itself in my experience. FreeBSD is just plain FreeBSD. That I love: one system as a whole, not tens of dozes of systems that share more or less the same code-base.

[..a post or two..]

Wrong.

The point is that while all the *BSD share the same heritage, the code-base is different and unique for each flavor. Apart from the efforts by Debian, Gentoo et all, FreeBSD is just FreeBSD and NetBSD is just NetBSD etc. You choose the OS of your choice and off you go. All in one package.

You seem have observed that when looking for answers to problems using a Linux-based system, the answers may or may not work depending on which system you use. The observations themselves are not wrong, but your conclusion about their source is not very solid. What you are seeing is a social problem rather than a technical one. People obtain 'Linux' and then think they are running 'Linux', and then when things break they get help for 'Linux.' But, as you know, Linux is not an operating system and the problems they have are probably absolutely irrelevant to the kernel. Yet the tag 'Linux' is more often than not the software they attribute their problem too, thus asking support for it. Usually, a "oh, and I just happen to use xyz distribution" is added as a side note.

Fragmentation within the two communities is not the issue per se, it is how people see that fragmentation. You should never ask for support for your "Linux Operating System" because there is no such thing. Linux distributions and BSD flavors are both distributed in "unified packages" and differ wildly between one another. Also, most Linux distros don't use vanilla kernels, and it can be argued that, like BSD, they are just "derived" from the original (albeit they do snag upstream regularly rather than forking, a key but not really relevant difference). But the whole discussion about kernels is moot, because it simply does not pertain strongly to the problem you describe. If people would realize that Slackware != Gentoo != Debian != Fedora != SuSE, just like they realize that FreeBSD != OpenBSD != NetBSD, then Linux support would be in the same state as you seem to imply BSD's is.

Regarding distribution-specific docs, this can be problem, but does FreeBSD really rewrite all the docs so that there is no confusion? (for non freebsd-specific stuff, of course) That is a monumental task, and if they do then wow, great for FreeBSD users. I personally consider it a silly waste of time. With Debian we just have the upstream docs and README.Debian where the maintainer is *supposed* to document Debian-specific differences which would otherwise cause confusion.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[10101001 10101001]

This is in reply to this post and all the posts up the line made by you. This seems the best place, considering I have a response to various parts throughout the line. So, to begin:

When I wrote my article and its follow-up on directions I think a Linux Distribution could take...

I'd like to start out by asking what Linux Distribution you were talking about. Was it Gentoo? Mandrive? Ubuntu? Or did you mean all distros?

Which is surprising, because the very point of the Linux design is that different distributions were supposed to be able to explore completely different tracks. There shouldn't be any "one distro to rule them all", yet many of the respondants demanded exactly that! (Amusingly, they couldn't agree on *which* distro to rule them all.)

What I find surprising is that you seem to be making grand generalizations of "the Linux Destop", not "the Linux Desktops". For all your talk about exploring different tracks, you're suggesting a single track for everyone. It comes as no surprise to me that the many people in the many already existing tracks are yellling "Never change it!" aka "we don't want to unify under your design". It really shouldn't amaze you that they can't agree on one Linux to "rule them all".

I understand that the Linux community is wide and varied, but this sort of attitude is not helping anyone.

It probably helps established distros to not wonder off on a goose chase whom already have a target audience.

In fact, this sort of attitude causes Linux to take two steps back for every one step forward it takes in the market.

"The" market, of course, is the goal all distros should be aiming for, since clearly all distros are interested in competing in one market, not many markets.

When I pointed this out to many responders, and mentioned the fact that I'm merely attempting to suggest a Desktop environment that would help Linux adoption, I got another surprising response: "Who said we wanted regular users? Linux is for the elite. If you're too stupid to recompile your kernel or read all the scattered HOWTOs, you're too stupid to use Linux!"

I'd love to know if this was the actual quote from a user. There's nothing about using Linux that makes one elite. At the same time, there's already many distros where it's not necessary to recompile the kernel nor read scattered HOWTOs. However, I can understand why many users of Linux aren't interested in others adopting Linux.

Now, in response there was this from an AC:

"If people can make some money off of Linux then good luck to them, but Linux should not change to meet some commercial wish list."

And you replied:

Why not? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet commercial desires? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet home user desires? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet scientific researchers' desires?

What is wrong with different Linux distros to meet the desires of different markets?

I'd assume when he talks about Linux, he's talking about the Linux community. Distros are, to some extent, a completely outside influence. From time to time, one distro makes a major contribution to the Linux community. But that sort of adoption is almost always based on technical merit, not on "to meet home user desires". And while I certainly encourage Ubuntu and Mandrive to continue their work to make a distro to their own ends, I'd never suggest that the main line of developers change their objectives. Why? Because it's their project for which they're allowed to do whatever they want. And pissing them off means that I, whom is already capable of doing such work, would basically be forced to do such work. This sort of goes on to your next idea:

Isn't that the entire point of Linux? "It's just a kernel," we say. But then the community berates anyone who attempts to reuse that kernel in Community Unapproved Ways(TM). How

they're a little late

[spiderworm]

Linux was mainstream five years ago.

Re:they're a little late

[spiderworm]

I take issue with the argument that Linux isn't mainstream until it's mainstream on the desktop. Just because people don't realize it powers a lot of the servers whose websites they visit doesn't mean it's not mainstream.

per Webster:

mainstream: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence

Re:they're a little late

[spiderworm]

Anonymous Coward said: At this point, after the install, most Windows users could use Linux.

Amen to that. I installed 64 bit FC3 on the computer of some very non-technical friends of mine (a cop and a housewife) months ago and the only problem they've had has been the lack of a Flash player for 64 bit firefox, which in nobody's fault but Macromedia's. My laptop has 64 bit Ubuntu w/ Gnome and the sixteen year old foreign exchange student living with my family that has never seen or used a Linux OS before didn't need any help figuring out how to use it.

How many times...

[mpathetiq]

Must we hear the same spiel before it becomes the truth?
- to the tune of "Blowin' in the Wind"

Mission Critical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mission Critical- Does this mean that it is going to be used in military applications- or is this just some buzzwording that is demonstrating that whomever wrote the summary is a middle manager who uses buzzwords to sound bright?

Re:Mission Critical?

[Jesus_666]

Obviously it involes rolling a natural 20 while on some kind of quest, as any roleplayer could tell you.

Re:Mission Critical?

[cerelib]

Mission Critical is basically saying "always on or we are screwed". Corporations pay big money for highly tuned and tested machines that are designed for this type of work. They do not just trust a run of the mill server with any operating system, be it Linux, Windows, or any UNIX variant.

See HP or IBM

Everything takes 5 years

[foQ]

How come every thing is "5 years away" but never seems to get here. I'll bet the writers for the Jetsons anticipated space cars in 5 years too.

Re:Everything takes 5 years

[Agret]

the jetsons was set in 2000

In other news...

[C3ntaur]

Gartner Group was reported to be five years away from becoming a credible news source for the IT industry.

Sure, it might as well be tomorrow, or ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another kooky prediction. Linux already performs just as well or better that Windows, and it does have better security, really.
Now all thet we need is to make it perform better and make it secure. What a crap.
As a matter of fact linux already mainstream in many areas, and for all we know, it may never replace Windows on a desktop.
But predictions are always true, right ...

ZDNet

[Anonymous Coward]

The source of bullshit for years and still counting.

Only 5 more?

[spooje]

Hasn't Linux for the desktop been 5 years away for the last 10 years?

Re:Only 5 more?

[AliasTheRoot]

> Hasn't Linux for the desktop been 5 years away for the last 10 years?

It was only 3 years away 10 years ago.

Re:Only 5 more?

[fritz1968]

Hasn't Linux for the desktop been 5 years away for the last 10 years?

It was only 3 years away 10 years ago.


Why is this thread beginning to sound like Windows Explorer reporting on how long it will take when copying a large number of files?

2015 called...

[RichardX]

..they want their article back.
Maybe John Titor can help.

Finally! *My* chance to be an angry Lunix zealot!

[Otter]

Five years to mainstream Linux -- I'd say they were being optimistic about desktops. But servers? When is this report from, 1997?

What does 'mainstream' mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, 'Running the majority of web servers worldwide' doesn't count as mainstream.

Its all in the hardware

[nighty5]

When Linux supports the full range of hardware that is currently under NDA's and vendors that refuse to "support" Linux other than supplying tainted binary kernels; then and only then will Linux be ready.

I personally have moved to a mac because I couldnt wait any longer. Will revisit Linux on the desktop in maybe 3 - 5 years.

I know a lot of people don't want t hear this

[MatD]

But, each enterprise app you run will have different requirements, but as a general rule, big enterprise customers use version of operating systems that are a couple of years old. That means, most of the bugs have been addressed, or are at least well known.

This means that most of the software the current /.'r is running, won't show up in enterprise level distributions for several years. So yeah, five years off doesn't sound that far off the mark.

No way!

[Anonymous Coward]

A five years from now Windows Vista will be ready for public beta (=final version)!

In other news...

[TubeSteak]

http://www.google.com/search?q="five+years+away"

After a quick google search, I've uncovered that:

1. Iran at least five years away from producing nuclear weapon

2. CIA five years away from terror readiness

3. Scotland: Independence 'five years away'

4. Cancer cure about five years away, British scientists claim

5. Dog returned to owners after being lost five years ago

6. Infants' gastro vaccine may be five years away

It's about to hit the mainstream?

[burtdub]

Mainstream? Well, I was into Linux before it was cool. I totally dig their older stuff so much better... then they sold out to the man
</indierock>

Grain of salt

[scronline]

Anything Gartner says about Windows and Linux has to be taken with a grain of salt. A very large grain at that. How can you trust anything that a company that's been paid by Microsoft once to say anything realistic about a Microsoft competitor? I mean, if linux isn't "mature" why is it already in so many networks? I don't know a single ISP that doesn't have atleast ONE linux server. Even those ISPs that are Windows based still has atleast one linux box somewhere. For that matter, why are so many Unix boxes being replaced with Linux? I personally have replaced 2 Windows servers for clients with Linux in the past 6 months. My ISP, though small, has moved from 12 Windows servers to 4 Linux boxes and 1 Windows. But of course it's not stable enough to handle the work? I was getting hacked on a monthly basis with the Windows NT servers. And the remaining server got nailed by the zotob virus even though I had applied the patch. But THIS is ready for the mainstream datacenter? I mean, c'mon. If it wasn't ready there wouldn't be so many Linux servers out there. What all of these "reports" fail to be able to take into consideration is all the White boxes out there. Or for that matter all the servers people have purchased with Windows or without OS all together that get wiped out and have Linux installed. I, for one, have gotten really tired of this kind of BS "news" since it's always putting Linux capabilities down, or DRASTICALLY misreported numbers. I mean.... http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_surve y.html Most servers running apache are Linux. Just kind of tired of this misinformation.

Re:Grain of salt

[BeanThere]

The study is more about the market state than the technical readiness of either Windows or Linux, don't confuse the two. Technically Linux may well be ready and in many ways is better than Windows as a server, but this doesn't automatically translate to higher adoption in the market, as Windows has massive unfair advantages e.g. huge marketing budget & sales team, 'network effects', critical mass, desktop monopoly etc. When they say Linux is "ready" to start becoming "mainstream" they don't mean it is now technically 'good enough', they mean, the market is at a point where it is willing to adopt Linux enough that Linux is poised to reach the required critical mass. In other words, in five years or so a significant percentage of companies will be 'ready' to adopt Linux as a server platform. It's not so much a case of "is Linux ready for the market", it's more about "is the market ready for Linux".

In 2000, gartner wrote

[WindBourne]

that by 2005, Linux would occupy about 1-2 % of all web servers, and would not even make it in the enterprise. This study can only mean that Linux has made it in the mainstream.

Wrong article title

[Decaff]

In spite of the title, the article does not state 'Linux Five Years Away From Mainstream'. In states that 'Linux is five years away from mainstream use in Enterprise IT infrastructures. This is all about high-end data-centre stuff - a niche use. This article is confusing a very specialised use of Linux with it's general use as, for example, a mid-range server where it has proved it's successfulness for years. There is further confusion where the article mentions that 'many are re-evaluating Linux use' (many turns out to be 5 CIOs out of a panel of 12).

I don't know whether this article is deliberate FUD, or just a confused mess. I suspect the latter.

Major player on the Desktop

[hummassa]

Depending on whom you ask, Linux is already a major player in the desktop.
It au pair with OSX in raw number of desktops installed in a lot of places, and was pushed in a lot of countries to the desktop. Ubuntu Hoary / Fedora Core are every bit as easy to install than W2k/XP, and work equally well. Choose your desktop environment for your users and you're set.

Sure Thing

[19thNervousBreakdown]

In 5 years, I'll wake up after 2 hours of sleep to my AI assistant handing me my rejuvination pill. I'll hop in my flying car and it'll drive me to work at the fusion plant. There won't be much work to do, because the Open Source software that runs the place does so damn well. That's OK though, we'll just play Duke Nukem Forever all day on our quantum computers and go home and fuck our supermodel wives, because geeks are cool now.

The Money Pit

[Solr_Flare]

Statements like these always remind me of the old Tom Hanks movie The Money Pit. "How much longer to finish the house?" "2 more weeks." "You said that 2 weeks ago!"

Windows Developer: Linux is mainstream now

[tjstork]

Why does Linux keep getting faulted for installation issues while Windows gets a pass?
Linux installation is not a reason to avoid switching at a corporate or oem level.

I downloaded and installed Suse 9.3 64 bit on my new dual Opteron the night before last. The installation went really smooth but of course there was a hiccup. I had to install sensors. That involved a trip to a web site, yasting around a bit, etc.

It would be easy to blast Linux for not automatically doing everything and retreat to M$ land, except that Windows 64 bit doesn't even have drivers out of the box for my SATA hard drive and thus wouldn't work at all. If I really wanted fans to work badly enough, and could not get a device, I could write a kernel module myself and all Linux hardware stuff has excellent documentation to at least get me started.

The bulk of all OS distributions are either OEMs or corporate rollouts. OEMS have a team that prepare images for a fixed hardware, and so do corporate rollout centers. Whether you wade through driver compatibility issues on Windows or Linux doesn't matter. Both systems have similar problems and Windows wizards at that level don't really help someone who should already be an expert on the topic.

I would think that OEMs might consider locking down Linux PCs so that end users do not have the root password. So they can't break it...

Re:Windows Developer: Linux is mainstream now

[BeanThere]

It would be easy to blast Linux for not automatically doing everything and retreat to M$ land, except that Windows 64 bit doesn't even have drivers out of the box for my SATA hard drive

You hit the nail on the head. People hold Linux up to different standards than Windows. If you try bring Linux into an organisation, even the smallest hiccup will be met with criticism and "told you so"s that you 'shoulda stuck with Windows'. But the Windows server can crash several times a month and nobody even blinks, because, well, "that's just normal" ... the "server down again guys" routine. The fact that so many other people on the planet also have problems with Windows somehow "validates" its crappiness in the minds of its users - managers often don't really understand computers, so they probably subconsciously reason "as long as everyone else has these problems it must be normal" right? Meanwhile you're bringing in Linux because it's presumably better, so people automatically look for flaws, especially if you're basically trying to "prove the managers wrong" for their decision to use Windows ... managers who like to think they know a lot do not like people who know more than them about something questioning their decisions. (This pretty much describes the situation at my last job.)

Re:Finally! *My* chance to be an angry Lunix zealo

[GPLDAN]

I think it's really important to distinguish from Linux the server platform and Linux the desktop platform, as you say. I run GNOME from an Ubuntu distro on the desktop, and it's.... pretty good. But it's not XP. No Quicktime or WMV plugin means a lot of websites like CNN and Yahoo don't really work well. Xine is ok for DVD content, but overall it's a bit slow and uses more resident memory than what I consider an equivalent XP system does.

Linux as a server has arrived, and has been here for awhile.

5 years is not much to a large enterprise

[RMH101]

researching, designing and implementing (smoothly, including migrating your data to your new environment with no impact to the business) a change to a new operating system *always* takes a long time. here, we're not moving to XP from 2000 as it's not worth it: we're moving to longhorn as and when it emerges. it'd take just as much planning (probably more, in fact) to shift to linux. think upgrade cycles. think win2k going off support as a driver to change. 5 years doesn't seem all that long to me...

Out of touch

[6031769]

Assuming that this has been reported correctly (there is no link to Gartner's actual report), it shows just how far out of touch Gartner is when it comes to technical matters such as this.

I won't disect what they've said because probably everyone else reading this knows the flaws in both their arguments and facts, but if an organisation can make money producing unsubstantiated and just plain incorrect claims like this then I am clearly in the wrong job.

So, here's the plan: we set up our own global organisation, just like Gartner, and we issue our own PR, which by contrast will contain no factual errors and will not only contain details of the present situation but also predict how much better the situation is becoming (and how quickly). These reports can be distributed within the community who can then go to their customers/partners/PHBs and say "Hey, there's this great new report out which says that Linux is running on 10 million desktops worldwide and this market share is set to treble in the next 12 months". That way, coming from an authoritative source, they will naturally acknowledge that it is true.

I'm not entirely joking here - who's up for it?

Linux always 5 years from Mainstream

[WillAffleckUW]

Just like Fusion is always 10-20 years in the future for commercial usage.

It depends on what your definition of "mainstream" is, of course. Right now, more people are using Linux than ever used Microsoft's DOS. Or Windows 3.1 for that matter.

Define your own reality - don't let others define it for you, with metrics based on the sales price of the OS, or the net revenue from OS sales. Linux strength is it's low cost, so it will never win at that game.

But right now, many people worldwide use Linux, or even BSD, even if it's what runs on their cell phone or inside their networked self-repairing robot-dog-feeding fridge.

And, to paraphrase Martha Stewart, that's a good thing.

Yawn...

[Pedrito]

Kind of like this article from 5 years ago, or this one from 3 years ago, or this one from Dec. 2000.

In 5 years, there will be an in every garage. Yawn...

Re:Pencil that in...

[WillAffleckUW]

Ok, I'll pencil Linux in right between Fusion energy and my flying car.

Fusion is always 10-20 years in the future. Linux is before that, but after jet packs ...

Not a military term

[BeanThere]

"Mission Critical" is not a military term:

mission critical "Vital to the operation of the organization. The term is very popular for describing the applications required to run the day-to-day business."

It may once have been a military term, but its usage has long ago become more generalised, so that usage is now strictly a part of the etymology i.e. history of the phrase. Language changes, and the correct version of a word is the one in use today.

Its not the hardware

[tempest69]

The problem isnt hardware support, it's install hell. When your RPM requires lib blah.bla.o and lib blah.blip.o, then you need to satisfy those dependencies, but sometimes those arent able to run with your current kernel. or need a compiler that you dont have installed. Before you know it your trying to install a compiler, and getting dependency errors for it, wondereing just how many hoops you need to jump through just to get one dinky peice of software to work. Once the Install-HELL is gone and the hardware "works by default" then linux has a go at the desktop. Then there is "Directory Hell" where the average user never wants to learn why a folder isnt a file, and why you cant view a folder full of family photos when you click open.

Until you can get the easy things doable by the masses, then you have a chance at taking the desktop.

Storm

Re:Its not the hardware

[Bralkein]

What the hell are you talking about?

I've been using Linux for the last three years, I've gone through Mandrake, SUSE, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware and Arch Linux and I have never ever had to manually go around and resolve package dependencies (except possibly on Slackware, but even then you can download swaret or slapt-get to solve that, and Slackware is meant to be a pretty hardcore nerd distro anyway). When exactly did you encounter this problem, and with which distro? I'm genuinely interested to know, so I can stay the hell away from it.

You might have a point if you're talking about downloading Mandrake RPMs and trying to install them on SuSE or something like that, but that's not meant to work anyway, and I don't know why you'd think it would. It's not as if you'd buy Toyota engine parts for your Ford now, is it?

Re:Its not the hardware

[MrNemesis]

Most Linux advocates don't just hand their grandma a copy of Linux From Scratch and leave them to it, you know...

My first ever experience with Linux was Mandrake 8.2 Beta. I found the installation of the OS much easier than (my first) windows install two weeks previously; It Just Worked. Once I'd gotten my head around how it handled installing things, it was easy.

These days it's brain-sputteringly simple. Every desktop distro worth its salt has a graphical package installation utility that explains exactly which packages are available, and what they are used for - usualy sorted into relevant categories. Heck, even installing things as complicated (in the Linux world) as kernel modules/drivers is usually simple.

Granted, some pre-alpha drivers require some confugling, but once they go stable and are added to the kernel, it becomes practically impossible not to set things up properly, thanks to the marvell of things like hotplug. Even relatively complicated pieces of software (that no Joe Schmoe would install anyway) such as Apache and MySQL have GUI configurators available. In the realm of pure desktop productivity/leisure software, I've not encountered a single package that didn't just install and give me a nice clickable button in my K/foot/whatever menu.

If there's anything wrong with the way modern desktop distros handle packaging, it's educating the users away from the "download arbitrary .exe from random website, double click to install" mindset. Whilst I agree that a unified packaing system would be great, different distros are tuned for different usage models, so (to me at least) it makes sense that they'll handle things differently. Forcing Linux to adopt the windows method of software installation will create more problems than it'll solve.

FWIW, my girlfriend is entirely happy with the Gentoo/KDE box I've donated to her.

Gartner Group

[AviLazar]

Gartner is a respected company. Many companies pay TONS of money to get their two cents. Considering this, for those of you who do not like what Gartner is saying about Linux...how about you counter their findings with your findings. Here are the rules:

You should be neutral (tough for this crowd)
You should be logical (shouldn't be tough for us, but will probably be)
You should perform qualified research with backup sources.

Publish
Profit

Saying "Gartner you suck, you don't know what your talking about. You are five years behind the times" is really lame and inflammetory (if not trollish). Proving them wrong goes a LONG way.

No... Linux is Complicated AND Easy

[xtracto]

Neither you nor the Gparent post understood one of th e main points of the great-GP post.

To answer GP:
Not in the software thats available, but in sheer choice of software.
MS Has Windows XP home and Windows XP Professional, designed for the general required use, its easy to tell epopel to get the correct version.

Sure, and it is really easy to tell the same people to buy Xandros or Lindows or even Mandriva. Just tell them to use Mandriva! Do not tell them to use just "Linux" because then you will give them problems.

Its like if someone bought a computer and you tell them "you can install Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4, Windows XP, Windows 2004 or MS-DOS if you like the command line"

Of course you will know that person and if he is not computer saavy, you will tell him just to install Windows XP Home or pro.

Make the same with Linux, as GP said, Open Source software is all about Choice, Linux IS OSS, so it is all about choice.

The problem here is that we (Linux advocates) continue to try to push this motto "Linux is Easy" or "Linux is for geeks only" or whichever but the key element is that Linux (nowadays) is all that.

"Linux is Easy" for your Grandma if she uses Lindows.

"Linux is easy" for John Sysadmin if he uses Slackware (just an example okey? do not bash me)

"Linux is for geeks only" if we are talking about Gentoo

"Linux is difficult and not functional" if talking about Lindows for John Sysadmin.

Do you understand? I think it is time to stop thinking about "linux" as the operating system -per se- and start to think about distributions there ARE distributions for every kind of person and whichever the person, if you recommend the wrong distribution it will be -difficult-

of course these reports are always right...

[EddyPearson]

in the same way, we're gonna run out of oil in 20 years...or is it 8 now...or fifteen...or are we moving to nuclear power! no! aliens are coming with a renewable energy source! i just dont know anymore! damn these glorified study groups...

TFA is BS

[Cederic]

The article keeps flicking confusingly from Linux to Open Source.

Open Source is already mainstream. I don't have colleagues at any major enterprises that don't use it, and the smaller enterprises tend to use it for a larger percentage of their operations.

Linux adoption is however far slower, and I don't know anybody at all using it (commercially) on the desktop. I'd be surprised if Gartner's 5 years is correct, especially given the way Sun's Java Desktop hasn't exactly been the most successful business venture ever seen.

So does anybody have access to the Gartner report that can clarify whether it's Linux that's 5 years away, or Open Source software?

(Not that I rate Gartner especially highly anyway)

Re:FreeBSD?

[CoderJoe]

I'm curious. Which distros did you try? All of the major distros, upon which others are based, have some form of package system. Gentoo has emerge, which, if I remember correctly, is very similar to your beloved Ports sytem. Redhat/Fedora Core has had RPM, and now has yum. Debian has dpkg and apt. Slackware also has packages of some sort, although I have no idea in what form.

It sounds to me like you didn't put a whole lot of effort into trying to use Linux and expected it to behave the same as FreeBSD.

hear me out on this (-1 troll)

[DaEMoN128]

The average home user (I'll say a 60 year old whippersnapper is getting there ) is becomming more accustomed to being able to do more advanced things on the computer with just the click of a button. Backing up a dvd is a perfect example. Or even better, transferring a VHS to DVD. On windows, they buy a piece of crap software that barely works, but does what it says it will do, and thats copy VHS to DVD. Stop and think how many steps it takes to do that in Linux. Every one is saying its mainstream now. IT IS NOT! It is industrial right now. Mainstream is when it is a house hold name. I actually keep a windows box around for several reasons (mostly multimedia in nature)just because I can get what I want to do done in a quarter of the time with that particular os. I use linux on all of my other computers because it does all that I need for those particular machines. When they make a distro that is so dummed down that my 60 year old father can pick it up and go "Why didn't you show me this earlier??" it will be ready for mainstream. There is too much configuration to do for now (/etc/hdparm.conf, ipchains, samba, etc.) that isn't done automagically or through a very easy to use UI (Suse is an exception, but it is so crippled in other respects that it can't do what else I need it to do with out doing the dependancy dance). Personally, I think Ubuntu is a good start, but it isnt perfect either. All of the distros have something to them, but none are ready for my old man...yet. Till then, It will always be 5 years away. After then, it will be the now.

I love it when they do this

[Lumpy]

The Executives here try to wave these "studies" in our faces here in IT/IS about how we should back off linux migration.

This one prompted a "see it's not ready to handle enterprise/critical applications.

Until we let the CTO know that we have been depending on Linux for 3 seperate ultra critical apps for over 5 years now. and that tiny companies like GOOGLE use it exclusively for it's servers/backend.

He did his typical "suprised" look and then left us alone once again. The key is to keep your Executives informed so they become immune to the FUD and lies these "professionals" like to spread about.

What will change in 5 years?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Honestly, I doubt Linux will ever go mainstream.

The biggest problem is the open nature of the OS. Too many variations on a theme, too many GUI interaces, distros, ways to install software (RPM packages and such). In the software industry, something isn't going to go mainstream if there are 20 variations.

If the Open Source Linux community comes together and decide to throw their efforts into ONE package with ONE standardized interface then they would be a real mainstream contender against Windows. But as long as everyone in this community thinks they can make a better version then others in the community Linux will never become a mainstream alternative, just a hobby/underground OS.

Think of it, you buy a new computer and you get Windows installed. Whats the alternative? 20 varations of Linux, all with their own strengths and weaknesses. Ubuntuu, RedHat, YellowDog, Debian, Mandrake etc, etc, etc. Which do you install? Which one will be around for the next 5 years considering companies are shuffling their distros around and changing names/versions like toilette paper. Different distros all have different versions of the kernel and modules, not all use the latest and the greatest, some rely on stable older kernels, some use ones compiled yesterday. Finally after all that, what UI do you use, Gnome or KDE and variants of those themes?

Some say Linux's greatest strength is its flexibilty but this is its greatest weakness. There is no standardization and no uniform front for the mainstream consumers to see. Mainstream users are Ma and Pa, noobies, anyone that decides perhaps its time to find out what all the fuss with computers is about. These people do not want infinite choice in their OS and OS components, they want to walk into a store buy a computer and buy an OS to install on it. They don't to trial 20 different Linux distro until they find the one that is right for them, even if they are all free. Mainstream users don't want to waste the time or make an effort to find the best solution for their needs, which is why Windows IS Mainstream. It may be crap in so many ways, but its ONE choice for mainstream consumers.

The Linux community needs to stop this childish in-fighting and immature idea that there SHOULD be 20 version of Linux, and if any are serious about competing with Windows then its time to partner up and create a unified front, create ONE alternative to Windows, package it up and put it in the stores next to the Windows XP boxes and sell it for $20.

This will never happen and so Linux will be a business product and never a mainstream desktop OS!!!

Re:FreeBSD?

[FlightTest]

I tried Linux *FIRST*

I tried SuSe, Mandrake and one other I think. Problem was, every time I read a HowTo or other document, right after discussing how to do something, it always added "your distribution may do this differently." And surprise, surprise, they did. So I tried FreeBSD. I got the book "Absolute BSD" and went through that. And every example worked as published. Yes, I understand that this is due largely to the "FreeBSD is an operating system, Linux is a kernel" thing, but the problem I ran into was a lack of distribution-specific information for any given linux distribution.

FreeBSD was simply easier to understand for me. I do recognize that is a highly personal choice, though.

Demonstrate performance and security?

[qualico]

"warns the biggest test will be whether it can demonstrate the necessary performance and security to function as a data centre server for mission-critical applications."

That statement has to be coming from the completely clueless.

I'd say that this happened 5 years AGO:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/09/05/septe mber_2005_web_server_survey.html

Bunk... Pure bunk, that is...

[Svartalf]

I'm actually amazed you got modded up with that.

Software, in general, is complicated.

Even if you tell someone to "get XP Home" (Of which, I'd NEVER tell anyone to get- Home's got a bunch of crap turned on that actually destabilize the machine...) or to "get XP Professional", you still have to tell them to "get an Anti-Virus proram" (Which is best? Your guess is as good as any- and it's more off of personal preferences, cost, etc...) and to "get an Anti-Spyware program" (Again, which is best? And, it's the same story as the Anti-Virus stuff...). This doesn't even go into an Office Suite, IM, etc.

With a Linux distribution, there's pretty much all of that taken care of. And there's several different "go get the 'Home' version" of Linux to choose from- Mandriva, Ubuntu, Xandros, Linspire, and Knoppix come immediately to mind right out of the gate. For the slightly more advanced, Fedora Core or SuSE come to mind. And you don't need to buy a "server" version for someone if they need one- the same "home" version will work quite well for server use (Much moreso than Windows versions do...).

You're entitled to your opinions, of course, but they're merely that- opinions . The reality of things is a lot different from what you've espoused in your comments.

Re:Finally! *My* chance to be an angry Lunix zealo

[kbielefe]

No Quicktime or WMV plugin means a lot of websites like CNN and Yahoo don't really work well.

I think it's important to distinguish between no Quicktime or WMV plugin and no easy to install on Ubuntu Quicktime or WMV plugin. CNN works great for me using mplayer-plugin on my Gentoo systems, thank you very much, and just required a USE flag setting if I remember right. Getting it to work on most other distros I have tried, however, can be quite an experience, but it is still possible. And I believe it works out of the box on commercial, desktop-oriented distros like Linspire.

Re:Nuclear Fusion I AGREE COMPLETELY

[psbrogna]

I suggest you take 15 minutes out of your life (vs > 45 min for Win X) & do an Ubuntu installation. The only potential user hurdles are because it has to be installed- it it came on the machine there wouldn't be much difference between it & Windows. I say this because I've installed it for Joe non-technical user and they're fine with it.
This is the case now- not some nebulous prediction.

You are correct

[jd]

Even to the extent of the Linux kernel, there is no "Linux", per-se. There is a vanilla kernel, but then there are a large number of kernel patches and patch collections. On top of that, not all options exist for all architectures, and different parts of the kernel will compile differently under different (ie: non-GCC) compilers, where they compile at all. Picking patches includes such issues as to the "real-timeness" of the kernel, security issues, clustering and even how kernel-specific modules need to be. You'll also want to decide if the kernel is to be on storage or in the BIOS.

This is before you even get to Linux distributions. And still before you get to the distribution, you've the C library to contend with. There are several for Linux, and this will determine what you can run and how it will perform. So, choosing a different C library essentially changes the whole picture.

Oh, and on top of that, you need to decide how generic/specific the kernel and C library are to be, with regards to hardware. Do you want something that'll run on any white box with the processor of your choice? Or do you want something that runs specifically on your machine, as it stands right there and then?

Then, there's your choice of init system. There are quite a number listed on Freshmeat and there are probably as many more again that aren't listed. You also don't need a classic init system, if you've something specific in mind and it won't change - you can write a program that starts up whatever you like.

Assuming a fairly standard init, to have a working Linux system, you need to be able to connect to it somehow. There's about a dozen getty-type packages out there, with different strengths and weaknesses. There are several login programs. For graphical logins, the number od xdm-like packages is unbelievable. I've lost track of the number of username/password systems, which may or may not use PAM or something similar.

So far, the number of combinations is astronomical. We've not got as far as a working system, all we've got is a skeleton that'll allow connections and trigger things.

My personal preference would be to have a meta-distribution that is compiled on a central system, where you pick the options from a pick-list and it builds the distribution from your choices.

Re:FreeBSD?

[FST777]

First of all, let me state that I tried Linux before everything else (VectorLinux if I'm recall it right). I have worked with Slackware for our Laptops (UMTS/G3-card didn't work with FreeBSD, it does nowadays) and I do remember that their pkg_install resembles FreeBSD's pkg_add quite a lot. I even did a kernel-recompile in order to get the card working, so I kinda figured it out.

I further tried Mandrake, SuSE, Debian and Ubuntu (and Knoppix and DSL, but these are not in question here).
I know all the goodies that is told about yum, rpm, apt-get etc... but I just can't find the right packages for the right distro at the right time without all the dependency hells. Further more, doing a recompile of any part of the system in FreeBSD is plain simple. I was horrified at how complex the whole thing was with Slackware.

btw, I was not asking a serious question, only posting my remarks. Linux is not linux quite often, which makes googling for problems quite a problem itself in my experience. FreeBSD is just plain FreeBSD. That I love: one system as a whole, not tens of dozes of systems that share more or less the same code-base.

That put aside, I can see the point in Linux as it is today. In my opinion, *BSD might be a tad closer to be embraced by the enterprises for several reasons (and this is not the topic for them), on their servers as well as on their desktops. But I do like all the efforts to get any OSS/OS there though.

Done, 5 years passed

[sad_]

According to wikipedias description of mainstream, we are there already. the 3 criteria for mainstream are:

• something that is not out of the ordinary or unusual;
  
• something that is familiar to the masses;
  
• something that belongs to an identifiable genre

linux is not unusual anymore, it can be found anywhere you look and what is more, everybody knows the 'linux' word, ofcourse that doesn't mean they want to use it.

Re:Not the first time NYT has misled everyone

[Chemicalscum]

For us on the real left the NYT is just a propaganda rag for the American empire - and yes "They're about as reliable a source of information as that former Iraqi information minister!"