The reason that we don't see wider Linux adoption is because calling the it all "Linux" is a faulty assumption.
There isn't one Linux operating system, there are many. And they are all different. Different leaders, different philosophies, different bug tracking systems... If the distros weren't the only problem you have multiple window managers, multiple desktop managers, multiple ways of doing package management, etc etc...
Until there is a clear winner, we won't see a good jump in Linux market share.
Until the "Linux Community" actually starts working in the same direction this is simply going to stay a collection of stuff that doesn't always work together.
The original poster is right in a way, we have failed. Until there is a significant amount of people working towards a stable "Linux Desktop", a product we can all get behind, we can't mount an organized campaign.
But this is contrary to the whole "Linux Community" philosophy which basically says "If I don't like it your way, or I don't understand it your way I'm going to rewrite/engineer/fork the code. Then I'm going to make a distro and support my users... Sure it may confuse the users, but my machine is going to work. We're going to get into bitter flame wars, we're going to have all this redundant code. We're going to keep fighting each other while the big boys get the market."
If I don't check in with my Jewish mother every few days she'll go crazy and call everyone I might have once talked to. I didn't set this up, it was genetics.
Your observations are so widely shallow they only look like depth.
What you are basically proposing are TIGHTER government controls on EVERYTHING. I don't know how you do that while saying "Government regulation could go a long way, but who really wants a bigger government?" in the beginning of your post. But somehow that logic makes sense to you.
"7a. Reduce the funding to every government agency by 2% per year until the customers start complaining. Then, analyze the complaints to see if better customer service could fix the problem. Fire assholes and slashdoters. We pay for 8 hours, fucking work them."
This is my favorite of your comments. You try reducing the funding for the arts, and watch as they torch your house and call you a fascist.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick! Trademark the word iSuit before Apple, Cisco or Linksys beat you to it!
The reason that we don't see wider Linux adoption is because calling the it all "Linux" is a faulty assumption.
2 9/1214225
There isn't one Linux operating system, there are many. And they are all different.
Different leaders, different philosophies, different bug tracking systems...
If the distros weren't the only problem you have multiple window managers, multiple desktop managers, multiple ways of doing package management, etc etc...
It's called the Paradox of Choice, and it's been covered on this site many times...
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/
Until there is a clear winner, we won't see a good jump in Linux market share.
Until the "Linux Community" actually starts working in the same direction this is simply going to stay a collection of stuff that doesn't always work together.
The original poster is right in a way, we have failed. Until there is a significant amount of people working towards a stable "Linux Desktop", a product we can all get behind, we can't mount an organized campaign.
But this is contrary to the whole "Linux Community" philosophy which basically says "If I don't like it your way, or I don't understand it your way I'm going to rewrite/engineer/fork the code. Then I'm going to make a distro and support my users... Sure it may confuse the users, but my machine is going to work. We're going to get into bitter flame wars, we're going to have all this redundant code. We're going to keep fighting each other while the big boys get the market."
If I don't check in with my Jewish mother every few days she'll go crazy and call everyone I might have once talked to.
I didn't set this up, it was genetics.
So who gets to decide what a slow-moving bureaucratic organization is?
All ideas are good in theory until you get to the implementation details.
Your observations are so widely shallow they only look like depth.
What you are basically proposing are TIGHTER government controls on EVERYTHING. I don't know how you do that while saying "Government regulation could go a long way, but who really wants a bigger government?" in the beginning of your post. But somehow that logic makes sense to you.
"7a. Reduce the funding to every government agency by 2% per year until the customers start complaining. Then, analyze the complaints to see if better customer service could fix the problem. Fire assholes and slashdoters. We pay for 8 hours, fucking work them."
This is my favorite of your comments. You try reducing the funding for the arts, and watch as they torch your house and call you a fascist.