Gratuitous religion-based comments aside, I can see the poster's point on this. Linux does have potential--you, I, and every other dedicated user can attest to this. But we have to be honest with ourselves in that it is going to require more than shameless marketing if we really want to make it something that the masses would prefer over proprietary operating systems and closed-source software.
The things that Linux, in my opinion, needs the most is to drastically improve its hardware support. Many of the readers, as well as myself, have no problem with tracking down odd dependencies to get decent support out of otherwise unsupported computer hardware (It's fun to many of us.) But the proverbial average user does not have the time, inclination, or knowledge base to take up these pursuits. So hardware support is at the top of the list. It would be great if everyone took up C++ and assembly and started writing drivers, but it will be much easier if we can get the hardware distributors to take Linux seriously so that they themselves can handle the driver support for the products they sell.
The next would be to provide an option for a consistent user interface. This does not--and should not--mean that the user should be locked down into a certain mode of doing things, because the versatility of Linux is what makes it so powerful. But a near-uniform set of user interface guidelines would make the transition for the home and office user all the easier. Apple did this with BSD--with incredible results--but failed in that it left the user no option other than its user interface. We could do better by making a great, intuitive interface, but not locking the user into using it if he or she would prefer a different one. KDE and Gnome (among many others) are trying for this, but we would do better if one of the two did come out as dominant, so we could focus more time on developing quality apps and drivers.
Another poster mentioned--quite rightly--that the comparisons on installing Linux versus installing Windows is like comparing apples to oranges because a very high percentage of Windows computers came with it preinstalled. These users will never know the joys of trying to find the right SATA drivers for a newer Windows XP box or the time-consuming processes of looking through drivers to find the one that doesn't crash. They plug the machines in and they are ready to go--BECAUSE someone has already taken the time to do the research, gather the drivers, and set the machine up as ready to go. Smaller companies, such as mine, can change this perception by offering preinstalled Linux environments to the enduser, complete with reinstallation discs that would install and configure the packages and dependencies that each machine needs.
Finally, I am a Linux user. I am also a Linux distributor. That does not mean that I am a turncoat or a traitor if I present a solution to the customer that uses Windows products. What it all boils down to in the business is about the customer's needs, not the consultant's convictions. We have the opportunity to present the customer with options, and an obligation to put the consumer's business needs above how we think things "should" be. If we can make a clear case as to why Linux is desirable for their unique needs, businesses will turn around, as costs for operating system licenses continue to increase. This will trickle down to the home user, because people have a tendency to prefer using that which is familiar. On the other hand, businesses, universities, and John Doe will not embrace Linux as easily or as often if we cannot back up our claims with quality products.
Slashdot Mirror
Gratuitous religion-based comments aside, I can see the poster's point on this. Linux does have potential--you, I, and every other dedicated user can attest to this. But we have to be honest with ourselves in that it is going to require more than shameless marketing if we really want to make it something that the masses would prefer over proprietary operating systems and closed-source software.
The things that Linux, in my opinion, needs the most is to drastically improve its hardware support. Many of the readers, as well as myself, have no problem with tracking down odd dependencies to get decent support out of otherwise unsupported computer hardware (It's fun to many of us.) But the proverbial average user does not have the time, inclination, or knowledge base to take up these pursuits. So hardware support is at the top of the list. It would be great if everyone took up C++ and assembly and started writing drivers, but it will be much easier if we can get the hardware distributors to take Linux seriously so that they themselves can handle the driver support for the products they sell.
The next would be to provide an option for a consistent user interface. This does not--and should not--mean that the user should be locked down into a certain mode of doing things, because the versatility of Linux is what makes it so powerful. But a near-uniform set of user interface guidelines would make the transition for the home and office user all the easier. Apple did this with BSD--with incredible results--but failed in that it left the user no option other than its user interface. We could do better by making a great, intuitive interface, but not locking the user into using it if he or she would prefer a different one. KDE and Gnome (among many others) are trying for this, but we would do better if one of the two did come out as dominant, so we could focus more time on developing quality apps and drivers.
Another poster mentioned--quite rightly--that the comparisons on installing Linux versus installing Windows is like comparing apples to oranges because a very high percentage of Windows computers came with it preinstalled. These users will never know the joys of trying to find the right SATA drivers for a newer Windows XP box or the time-consuming processes of looking through drivers to find the one that doesn't crash. They plug the machines in and they are ready to go--BECAUSE someone has already taken the time to do the research, gather the drivers, and set the machine up as ready to go. Smaller companies, such as mine, can change this perception by offering preinstalled Linux environments to the enduser, complete with reinstallation discs that would install and configure the packages and dependencies that each machine needs.
Finally, I am a Linux user. I am also a Linux distributor. That does not mean that I am a turncoat or a traitor if I present a solution to the customer that uses Windows products. What it all boils down to in the business is about the customer's needs, not the consultant's convictions. We have the opportunity to present the customer with options, and an obligation to put the consumer's business needs above how we think things "should" be. If we can make a clear case as to why Linux is desirable for their unique needs, businesses will turn around, as costs for operating system licenses continue to increase. This will trickle down to the home user, because people have a tendency to prefer using that which is familiar. On the other hand, businesses, universities, and John Doe will not embrace Linux as easily or as often if we cannot back up our claims with quality products.
--Jason