Someone commented before me that the opportunity for Linux on the desktop existed when other OS (Windows 95-98) were the only alternatives, etc., and that this opportunity was missed. I submit that if the same opportunity shows up today, say Microsoft goes bankrupt and a mysterious virus leaves all Windows OS irreparably inoperable right now, Linux on the desktop won't succeed either, 20 years later. In my opinion, the reason is a fundamental cultural difference with commercial alternatives.
Commercial products/companies put (or at least try to put) the usability, the comfort of the user as a top priority. On the other hand, the Open Source culture, of which Linux is part, puts at the top of the priority stack the developer, programmer, freedom, choice, etc. Usability, the user, is secondary. You got to be nice to the developer, the new CS graduate, your colleague at your nonprofit org, etc. You have to provide lots of choices, lots of configurations, etc.
For the average user, and for many advanced users (like me), what is important is a system that is easy to use and maintain. I don't really care for the many choices and freedoms that I don't use. And they bug me if I have to learn them to actually exercise my sacrosanct right to make the choice. That takes time, and I have to get my job done. Endlessly learning and re-learning what has changed since the last release, and which didn't have to change in the first place because all was working alright before, is at the bottom of my preferences.
Thus, the new graduate from the CS MS program invented a super-duper new GNOME desktop, convinced others about its greatness and made GNOME 3 the standard desktop of the 'cutting edge' distro Fedora 16. Sooooo, I either have to spend days or weeks learning the 'new ways' of doing the same things that I am used to do, and unlearn what became the common way of navigating my applications, menus, filesystem, etc. to use the greatest-and-latest CS MS production.
Sorry: I don't have time to help you developer/MS CS student/graduate: I need to have my work done: I will use something else instead, something I am familiar with. For now I switched to KDE on Fedora, but it also suffers from some of the same 'greatest-and-latest' syndromes. Windows seems a better option: things keep working there more or less the way I am familiar with. It is also more stable than ever and the fonts of the desktop don't suck. Actully I am writing this on a Windoze machine. I would have preferred not to. But the Open Source culture forces me. By the way, according to what I read on the web, users have run away from GNOME 3 and from Fedora as a result, in mass. No, you can't force hundreds of users to learn your stuff. I am happy you got your degree. Just don't make pay for it.
I understand your heart, Open Source developers. I am a software developer too, with a few decades of experience in that. But I am also a user. I need to get my work done.
Some more user-friendly distros (Ubuntu, to name one that I use) try to mitigate all this. But there is little they can do: mitigation is against the culture: can't succeed, I think. Yet Ubuntu keeps it more usable.
I can continue with this, as I have followed the history and evolution of Linux since nearly the beginnings (my first desktop was RedHat 2 or something like that) but whoever wants to, can get the picture of what I am trying to say. All the symptoms described in the article and the comments are just the symptoms. If we want to cure a disease, you attack the source, the bacteria, virus, etc., not just the headache.
Is the cultural disease of Linux curable?. I am not optimistic. It is a culture, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone commented before me that the opportunity for Linux on the desktop existed when other OS (Windows 95-98) were the only alternatives, etc., and that this opportunity was missed. I submit that if the same opportunity shows up today, say Microsoft goes bankrupt and a mysterious virus leaves all Windows OS irreparably inoperable right now, Linux on the desktop won't succeed either, 20 years later. In my opinion, the reason is a fundamental cultural difference with commercial alternatives. Commercial products/companies put (or at least try to put) the usability, the comfort of the user as a top priority. On the other hand, the Open Source culture, of which Linux is part, puts at the top of the priority stack the developer, programmer, freedom, choice, etc. Usability, the user, is secondary. You got to be nice to the developer, the new CS graduate, your colleague at your nonprofit org, etc. You have to provide lots of choices, lots of configurations, etc. For the average user, and for many advanced users (like me), what is important is a system that is easy to use and maintain. I don't really care for the many choices and freedoms that I don't use. And they bug me if I have to learn them to actually exercise my sacrosanct right to make the choice. That takes time, and I have to get my job done. Endlessly learning and re-learning what has changed since the last release, and which didn't have to change in the first place because all was working alright before, is at the bottom of my preferences. Thus, the new graduate from the CS MS program invented a super-duper new GNOME desktop, convinced others about its greatness and made GNOME 3 the standard desktop of the 'cutting edge' distro Fedora 16. Sooooo, I either have to spend days or weeks learning the 'new ways' of doing the same things that I am used to do, and unlearn what became the common way of navigating my applications, menus, filesystem, etc. to use the greatest-and-latest CS MS production. Sorry: I don't have time to help you developer/MS CS student/graduate: I need to have my work done: I will use something else instead, something I am familiar with. For now I switched to KDE on Fedora, but it also suffers from some of the same 'greatest-and-latest' syndromes. Windows seems a better option: things keep working there more or less the way I am familiar with. It is also more stable than ever and the fonts of the desktop don't suck. Actully I am writing this on a Windoze machine. I would have preferred not to. But the Open Source culture forces me. By the way, according to what I read on the web, users have run away from GNOME 3 and from Fedora as a result, in mass. No, you can't force hundreds of users to learn your stuff. I am happy you got your degree. Just don't make pay for it. I understand your heart, Open Source developers. I am a software developer too, with a few decades of experience in that. But I am also a user. I need to get my work done. Some more user-friendly distros (Ubuntu, to name one that I use) try to mitigate all this. But there is little they can do: mitigation is against the culture: can't succeed, I think. Yet Ubuntu keeps it more usable. I can continue with this, as I have followed the history and evolution of Linux since nearly the beginnings (my first desktop was RedHat 2 or something like that) but whoever wants to, can get the picture of what I am trying to say. All the symptoms described in the article and the comments are just the symptoms. If we want to cure a disease, you attack the source, the bacteria, virus, etc., not just the headache. Is the cultural disease of Linux curable?. I am not optimistic. It is a culture, after all.