Recently my job has pulled me into the world of Linux. Since I have this nice new quadcore I am able to run VM's and not risk my precious little windows experience. So far I have set up VM's for Ubuntu and openSUSE and I find I like both of them and would actually find it perfectly acceptable if either were installed as my primary OS (but I digress).

Now historically I have NOT had good things to say about Linux. That is because am the local computer nerd that everyone calls when things are broken. So, until recently, I only saw Linux when there was a driver that would not work, or someone mangled some important script, i.e. I only saw it in some aggravating situation that highlighted its faults.

So in my new Linux adventures I came across this article, "A World of Beautiful Broken Toys"

My criticism of this is: "Who the hell knows what all the standards are!?!"

I mean here you are in your basement hacking together a few components. Add in a USB -- which is notoriously hard to get information on, and write some software that works and ship the thing. Then people complain because your inexpensive product is not compatible with their "off the grid" OS.

I love standards I really do. But there are so many, and many are obscure. Many times you are expected to pay just to get your hands on a formal description of the standard. It is really hard to get information on "standards" and frankly I just don't see much point in breaking your neck over them.

I really thing something needs to be done to standardize standards... to square away the mess.

I was having this debate the other day with someone. Linux will not become commercially viable (i.e. real competition with Microsoft) until one group or company sits down, declares standards for linux distros, and markets it. Ubuntu, KDE, gnome, just three various distros off the tops of my head and there are many more. How many current version of Windows? Two. (Essentially one since they are pretty much the same, but that's another debate)

Rant much? KDE and Gnome aren't distributions.

Specifically what are you guys complaining about?

Wasn't really a rant. Just a statement of my thoughts.



Fine. Flavors. Vanilla, chocolate, etc... The point is still valid 8)

I don't think it is. The whole point of Linux is choice (at least in my opinion). RedHat or Novell would be more than happy to sell you a Linux install, and they'll support it too. And as far as enterprise software goes, they all run on Linux... Any halfway decent admin can get it running with no trouble.

If you're moaning about the state of desktop Linux, look at OS X... Nearly the same market share, and it's in the same position - no software. At least, no commercial software. But when you consider how much it costs to port software to a different OS (particularly games), versus the fact that OS X and Linux together have maybe 5% of the market...

Yeah. My 0.02 USD. Kinda OT, as well, now that I think about it...

Well then, the new discussion question is--what would it take for a massive overhaul for developers of all sorts to write commercial software for Linux as they do Windows?

Horrible paradox: People won't use an OS without good commercial software, developers won't write software for an OS without a large user base. Can't have one without the other.

MASSIVE external investment.

You may be laboring under a common mis perception; most software developers don't really want the desktop! I know that sounds absurd, but think about it.

End users that will call up a helpdesk and tie it up for hours. Software is easy compared to end user support and anyone who makes software understands that. And if you have to offer support, business are far easier to deal with. For one, they'll pay up front for support, often a king's ransom, often for support they don't use. Microsoft has shown little interest is the little guy for quite some time for this very reason. Large customers simply offer a better return on investment.

Apple manages to survive because they'll put up with users; but they're selling hardware, not software.

Linux... Linux is not a company, to be strictly accurate, it's just the kernel. The large collection of programs that we think of when we say "Linux" are not looking for a market share. They're offered as the individual projects that they are. When a big guy, like Red Hat, pulls them all together under a common banner, that's a product.

Red Hat pumps cash and resources into key projects they believe will make their customer base happy. Their army of beta testers, the Linux community and Fedora in particular, do the work for free. In return, we get to use the software for free. It's a pretty neat system. It should be noted that Red Hat doesn't want the desktop either.

Whenever someone says they want "Linux" to do something, it should really be understood that there is no such thing. Who, specifically, should be doing what?

You know what? Linux on a server is not a choice, but a musthave.
Linux stuff is saying the same things for a loong time now. And that includes that it WILL bust microshit.

The true fact: ANY linux -without a built in linux geek in the box- on a desktop computer for the end user is JUST RUBBISH.

1. is NOT intuitive, no mather which "distro" You pick
2. IS NOT usable by people who just want to work with a computer
3. as a desktop it will ONLY give drawbacks for endusers who just want to USE the computer.

*notice: some linux users- most of them probably- find building a system from scratch, and endlessly searching for never exsistent drivers, or writeing them themselfs think they are useing the computer. Wich is not true for the end user in typical. Think of it like a tv set. If linux is a TV if You have time to tune it, You will get the best out of ONE channel, after endless hours of work. If You look at avarage joe, all he wants is to turn on the tv, get a remote with as few buttons as possible, and enjoy the show. For the "linux TV" the show would be to actually make it work.