Slashdot Mirror
2009, Year of the Linux Delusion
gadgetopia writes "An article has come out claiming (yet again) that 2009 will be the year of Linux, and bases this prediction on the fact that low-power ARM processors will be in netbooks which won't have enough power to run Windows, but then says these new netbooks will be geared to 'web only' applications which suits Linux perfectly. And, oh yeah, Palm might save Linux, too." The article goes on to skewer the year of Linux thing that seems to show up on pretty much every tech news site throughout December and January as lazy editors round out their year with softball trolling stories and "Year End Lists." We should compile a year-end list about this :)
So I've seen a few projects lately that really hit home for this, as well as a couple of generalizations. General stuff first.
The really basic, broad one is "audio editing in linux." I don't know if other people follow it like me, but the number of tools, good, quality tools, available these days are staggering, and it seems like this year was the year that all of them came into their own, maturity wise. Ardour, the Calf plugins, etc.
Another generic space that is seeing huge strides is graphics. GIMP going GEGL is a huge milestone, and will make making high quality graphics apps in linux far easier in general, as we're moving a big chunk of that work to a generic lib. nice.
But the real killers for me, that are hugely differentiated, are neither of those things. One is Beremiz, which is an open source automation framework that just pulls together existing open source software to create something new and amazing.
The other is Fritzing, which makes it easy to take an arduino project from prototype to production.
These are world-changers, and I don't even think many people are aware of them yet.
-Josh
-knewter
The thing about OSX is that I'm not sure I actually like it. It's the prettiest OS I've ever used, but I almost never use my Mac anymore.
I got a Mac laptop a few years back - I got it more for the physical design than anything else. It was a little weird using a Mac (after rarely using them since the early 90's), but I got used to it. I also clocked a lot of hours on a more powerful desktop Mac at work. I'd say that's given me plenty of time to get used to the difference between a Mac and a Windows box.
Windows used to piss me off to no end - constantly crashing, making me lose my work. It's been a while since that's been the case though - of course, I'm still an XP user with no intent on migrating to Vista in the near future. I've got a lot of the "cool" features turned off - no transparency, no fade-in boxes or menus, and a generally stripped-down interface.
On the hardware side, I love Macs. Except for the prices I've paid for them, I prefer all my Mac hardware to Windows (except for mice - a single-button mouse is a good example of art over function. I quit using single-button mice on a mac years ago, and hate being stuck on someone else's).
But the operating system, while pretty, just doesn't do it for me - even after years of using it. The standard GUI is too simple to suit my needs, and it's advanced interfaces aren't so well designed as the alternatives. I got to like both KDE and Gnome quickly (they just suffer from a lack of decent apps to make them worth my using them), but I still see Macs, software-wise, as belonging in the domain of unskilled users, and techies who use them just to use a Mac.
All the same, I hope Macs have a bright future - if nothing else than to drive their competition.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
I agree with this.
Netbooks shipping with Ubuntu default and Dell shipping Linux pre-packaged pretty much says that it's starting to become a serious contender in the consumer OS market.
It has a long way to go, but the ball is definitely rolling.
And the people making that argument always fail to include the same thing: a single idea on what different/new thing Linux developers are supposed to include.
Because every time Linux has done something different it's never gained traction. The innovations from Linux don't come from widespread appeal and revolutionary ideas; usually it comes from old-fashioned principles that are being ignored. Windows Server for years was unable to be administered well from the command line, whereas with linux servers the command line was the only way to administer it. Windows ignored user permissions until XP and didn't really start pushing them until Vista, whereas in Linux user permissions have been strict and remained the same for years. Windows goes for flash over performance, Linux makes sure to do both. The strength and innovation in Linux is that it sticks to its principles and makes sure that it does the job right time after time.
I think 2008 already was the year of the Linux desktop. It wasn't as big and flashy as everyone hoped, but for the first time I've seen a non-computer geek running Linux on their laptop-- not for any political or ideological issues, but because it was cheap and easy and did everything they needed.
I couldn't agree more. It was certainly the year of the linux desktop for me and my family. Netbooks are expanding, desktop distros like Ubuntu are gaining traction and mindshare, and OSS projects like Firefox are gaining ground in ways that couldn't have been imagined 5 years ago. Linux isn't a power on the desktop and may never reach that point, but this was the year when Linux expanded its potential users more than any other and it was noticed in a big way. If there really is ever a year of the linux desktop, it'll be deeply indebted to the foundation that was laid this year.
It is true. The benefites of running it on low power devices will makes Linux the entrenched OS instead of MS. In my household, we have 4 Windows systems, 1 linux file server, a linux Roku Netflix device, and a Linux TV. That makes 4 Windows Systems vs. 3 linux systems. Your average non-nerd would be less likely to have the file server and 3 of the windows boxes. We have reached the point that it would not be surprising to go into peoples houses and find more hardware running linux than windows.
I know that some people will say that "Your TV doesn't count because nobody knows it runs linux". It's presence in their TVs and Movie players and toasters and refrigerators will eventually come to their attention. They won't be interested, but when Linux gets spoken, it will no longer sound completely foreign. They will have seen the name in user manuals and configuration screens.
When a geek comes over to help them with their computer and suggest linux, the geek can point out the 5 or 6 other devices they have in the house that run linux, and the average Joe will see it less like an obscure nerd toy, and more like a new brand that they have never heard of.
No one has come up with the "database driven file systems" we were all promised years ago
This has been one of my research projects for 16 years. Recently, I've published a library that can be used for implementing one. It doesn't suffer from the same problems as earlier prototypes (that I didn't publish b/c they had limited use, but I might anyway someday). Most notably, because it's written in C++ with portability in mind, it possesses quite some powerful abilities. I have some even more powerful concepts ready that I might integrate into the library one day.
The problem isn't that Linux is copying Windows. It's that it's copying it badly. I make it a practice to alternate between Windows, Linux and Mac and really use them, so that I can get a sense of what is good and bad about them.
Currently, where Linux shines is the command line, and the package managers (I'm biased toward Debian). The GUIs work, mostly, but they aren't nearly as stable as Windows Vista, and they don't add any real value that Vista doesn't have.
Vista shines in that it's stable, and reasonably pretty. That's really about it. If you aren't a Windows power user, it's perfectly usable (if you are you might prefer XP, because it's less secure, and thus less troublesome at least until it gets infected). I find it pretty hard to get anything done on it though without installing Cygwin, which is a bit of a cheat.
Mac OS X shines in that it's pretty, stable, and reasonably easy to use. And the command line doesn't suck, although package management isn't anywhere near as good as Debian/Ubuntu. OS X also seems to have the best media support, as long as you don't care about playing Windows Media Player files (I don't).
Linux could clean Windows' clock if the GUI were more dependable. Right now it's pretty good, but occasionally falls flat on its face. Bluetooth support isn't dependable, and even networking support isn't 100% dependable at the GUI level. So of the three operating systems, unfortunately Linux is the one I find most frustrating to depend on on a day-to-day basis, even though it's the one I am rooting for.
In every thread that in any message board where anyone had declared "the year of Linux on the deskop", someone has tried to argue that "the problem with Linux" is that Linux developers are just trying to copy Windows. And the people making that argument always fail to include the same thing: a single idea on what different/new thing Linux developers are supposed to include.
Here's the beginning of an idea for you: if you were to implement the ultimate Google Apps PC, which relies on a web browser for word editing, presentations, etc. Would it look like IE and a start menu, or could you make it really seamless?
In other words: I use my computer more and more just to interact online, not so much to run applications locally on my machine. But every OS out there still thinks of the web as just another program. Can't we do better?
--
fairsoftware.net -- home of the Software Bill of Rights
If we keep copying whatever Microsoft implemented 3 years ago, we'll never pass them... What we need are real killer applications in completely new spaces.
Yeah, yeah, people keep saying that. In every thread that in any message board where anyone had declared "the year of Linux on the deskop", someone has tried to argue that "the problem with Linux" is that Linux developers are just trying to copy Windows. And the people making that argument always fail to include the same thing: a single idea on what different/new thing Linux developers are supposed to include.
But the fact is, it's never that easy to come up with a revolutionary idea, and it's often not necessary. What most people use their computers for is still web surfing, email, the word processor, and maybe storing music and pictures. If Linux is enabling people to do those things easily, reliably, and without frustration, then it has already "passed" Windows.
I'd like to add to this my perspective:
First off, if every Linux application developer sets themselves to the task of making their program innovative in some way, you'll wind up with a bunch of different innovative designs - and they may not all fit in with each other. Useful innovation requires clear leadership on the form that innovation will take - and for that clear leadership, striking out in an exciting new direction, to actually yield a good result across a wide range of software, that requires a lot of good thought about the problem, combined with experimentation to see how the design plays out.
Now, combine that with a second factor: when something new and different comes along that's better than what came before, people aren't necessarily going to flock to it right away. To some extent people enjoy staying with what's familiar to them. This is where really good PR and advertising comes in handy. It's not enough to create an exciting new product, you have to get people to use it.
The latter is a problem I've thought a lot about: I want to create a new Unix shell, quite different from the typical ones. I believe it will be a big improvement - but I also recognize that, once it's written, it's going to be an uphill battle to get people to use it.
Basically, when you're talking about "innovation" there is a big advantage to being the company who controls the de-facto standard OS in the computing world - able to make almost any change to the OS without significant fear of losing business, with the resources to make these changes carefully and to get people to embrace them as well. Now, that doesn't mean it always works out right or that Microsoft's designs are always the best for everyone - just that Microsoft has a kind of power to make and promote change that is difficult for Free Software to match.
One final point - I am a big advocate of the idea that, despite common ideas about UI design, a UI isn't (and perhaps can't be) "one size fits all". Most commonly applications are targeted at "normal" users - people who are normally expected to be content within a somewhat limited range of functionality, so long as it's easy and it works right. I think there is room in the world for applications targeted at users like myself - people who are happy to see things like scripting interfaces to an application not only present, but reflected within the UI itself (as in Emacs, for instance). There is not always a huge overlap between these groups and one does not need to "take over" the other. In that sense, the innovative side of Linux is as a proving ground of experimental code for this kind of user. If I can have that, plus be able to watch my video files without issues, then I'm a happy Linux user.
(And speaking of playing video without issues - trying to innovate before getting basic functionality like that working is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go about it... Functionality first - then get fancy...)
Bow-ties are cool.