Now let's enter the real world, where I don't magically have an infinite ammount of time available to me. I'm generally curious about Linux, but I don't want to waste my time on a distro that "isn't for me". It's very likely that if I pick at random that I'll end up with a sub-optimal distro, so I'm not even going to bother in that case (why would I compare my current OS to a BAD example of another OS).
This describes pretty much everyone in the world; we have a finite ammount of time and don't want to waste it. If you ACTUALLY want Linux to catch on with the general public (it's possible that you don't), then offer me ONE choice and I'll give it a shot. Until then, keep on working on your sub-genres that only hardcore users will ever have an interest in using.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in every single one of those 5 points, you mentioned Windows or Microsoft. I personally would argue that Linux should be similar to Firefox, not similar to Windows. Considering that Firefox is hugely successful and doesn't have any sub-distros (that I am aware of), do your 5 points still apply?
If Firefox had a dozen different versions, each with different web locations/features/visuals/interfaces, it would not be as popular as it is today. This should be obvious.
The same goes for Linux, one (of many) reasons that people won't switch (or recommend their friends to switch) is that LINUX DOES NOT EXIST, merely several similar OSes that build on the same base.
I'm a Windows/MacOSX C/C++ programmer that might be interested by dual-booting into Linux one day, but that will never happen because I don't know which 'distro' to install. If a computer-savy person like me won't even bother, how can you ever expect a casual computer user to??
Slashdot Mirror
Can you give some examples?
I work for one of Activision's subsidiaries and this is what we use:
int* gpiGlobalInt;
int FunClass::GetSize(int _iArg1, bool _bArg2)
{
bool bBool;
float* pfFloat;
static int siStaticInt;
for(;;)
{
}
}
Seems to work out well enough.
Now let's enter the real world, where I don't magically have an infinite ammount of time available to me. I'm generally curious about Linux, but I don't want to waste my time on a distro that "isn't for me". It's very likely that if I pick at random that I'll end up with a sub-optimal distro, so I'm not even going to bother in that case (why would I compare my current OS to a BAD example of another OS).
This describes pretty much everyone in the world; we have a finite ammount of time and don't want to waste it. If you ACTUALLY want Linux to catch on with the general public (it's possible that you don't), then offer me ONE choice and I'll give it a shot. Until then, keep on working on your sub-genres that only hardcore users will ever have an interest in using.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in every single one of those 5 points, you mentioned Windows or Microsoft. I personally would argue that Linux should be similar to Firefox, not similar to Windows. Considering that Firefox is hugely successful and doesn't have any sub-distros (that I am aware of), do your 5 points still apply?
If Firefox had a dozen different versions, each with different web locations/features/visuals/interfaces, it would not be as popular as it is today. This should be obvious.
The same goes for Linux, one (of many) reasons that people won't switch (or recommend their friends to switch) is that LINUX DOES NOT EXIST, merely several similar OSes that build on the same base.
I'm a Windows/MacOSX C/C++ programmer that might be interested by dual-booting into Linux one day, but that will never happen because I don't know which 'distro' to install. If a computer-savy person like me won't even bother, how can you ever expect a casual computer user to??