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 :)
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.
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.