Linux and its identity crisis
Linux needs to be Linux!
(Credit: Reviews.cnet.com)If you've been following the current rift in the Linux community between Linus Torvalds and his minions squaring off against Con Kolivas and the mainstream Linux fanatics, you probably know that it's getting quite heated. You also probably know that these two entirely different ideas could create three possible paths Linux can take for the future: stay geeky and appeal to the advanced tech guru in all of us; go mainstream and leave the advanced functionality and reliable kernel behind to compete with Microsoft and Apple; or face a "civil war" that could lead to total Linux annihilation.
Those that have followed the path of Torvalds are trumpeting his stance in saying that Linux is "the best" because it sticks to its core values and doesn't sacrifice usability to appeal to grandma. On the other hand, the mainstream group thinks Linux is in a unique position with Ubuntu to capitalize on the consumer market and make it a more viable alternative to Mac OS X and Windows for the average user.
And while I agree that some Linux distributions are ready for the "big time," they're typically not the best and they lose sight of what makes Linux great: security, advanced functionality and outstanding usability.
Linux shouldn't go mainstream--it should embrace its roots and stay Linux.
When Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal reviewed Ubuntu on Dell machines, he explained that Linux is too troublesome for the average consumer and should be ignored if you're one of his readers: "mainstream, nontechie users of digital technology."
And with an unending supply of readers who live and die on Mossberg's every word, this was the kiss of death for Ubuntu on a Dell. But Mossberg was right--Linux is typically not for the mainstream. And why should it be? If we want unstable systems, we can buy a Windows box and if we want a pretty design with far less functionality than a Linux machine, we can buy a Mac.
Why does the Linux community have an identity crisis? For years, Linux distributions have been giving the techie in all of us the ability to do exactly what we want. Try to do half of what you can do with a Linux box on a Windows or Mac machine and I guarantee you'll be begging for mercy.
From its inception, Linux was an alternative, another choice. When Torvalds started what would become Linux, he never wanted it to go mainstream and be just another Windows or Mac box; he wanted Linux to be a bastion of expression for those in the tech community who couldn't get enough out of the current OSs on the market. In fact, it was this tact that put Linux on the map and made it grow to a point that we're having this discussion.
Sure, there are some people that try to discount Linux for not being user-friendly enough or incapable of offering the "ease of use" the Apple fanatics have come to love in their Mac OS X machines, but why is that an insult? You're right--Mac OS X is easier to use and it "just works," but if I'm looking for an advanced experience or a more controllable environment, I'd boot up my Linux box any day.
The Linux community is an interesting group. Much like Republicans and Democrats, Linux is dominated by two factions with entirely different ideas. The conservatives want Linux to stay Linux and the liberals want to make money. Call me a conservative, or call me what you will, but the liberals are off-base.
It's interesting to me that the liberal arm of the Linux community is trying to play it off like it's not trying to turn Linux mainstream to make money. Sure, some of them say it's to take Linux away from the enterprise and towards the consumer market, but let's be honest with ourselves--it's about the money.
Historically speaking, Linux has never "been about the money," so why should it start now? Linux is Linux is Linux. Stop trying to make it go mainstream and let it maintain its stance as the best advanced operating system in the industry. If you want to go mainstream, run down to Best Buy--you'll find everything you need.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Business web hosting from Aplus.Net
Don 't forget there's no forking with the GPL. People can go off in a different direction, but their code and the changes they make are still publicly available. Anyone who feels like it (and has the organization to back him or her up, since it's a lot of work) can just take the current tree, pop it up on their site, and change things anyway they want, with Linus' blessing.
The fact is that all the kernel team is doing is the plain vanilla version. the larger distributors all change and mark up the kernel to fit their own marketing schemes, adding what is needed to make a workable distribution. Companies doing embedded work lop off whole slabs of the kernel, adding what's necessary to do they do. Anyone is free to do what s/he wants with the kernel, in compliance with the GPL.
In reality, an operating system can be both powerful and user friendly.
this article!
Please, next time, other than "shout" your claims, support them:
Are you comparing "Linux the kerner" vs. "Linux the distro"?
"but if I'm looking for an advanced experience or a more
controllable environment, I'd boot up my Linux box any day."
...and comparing with a mainstream user?
"In fact, it was this tact that put Linux on the map and made it
grow to a point that we're having this discussion."
Linux changed the original license to allow charging for
service... and THIS FACT put Linux on the map!
And so on... FACTS, NO SHOUTS!
I doubt you've even USED a Mac. Just because the Mac GUI
actually WORKS, meaning you aren't forced to get under the
hood like in Linux distros (such as Fedora in my own use),
doesn't mean you cannot fire up a terminal session and get
knee-deep in it if you want to...
This ain't your Grandma''s Mac. OSX is a stable, secure OS on top
of a flavor of Unix, something that Linux is drifting from, with
distros splintering here and there.
Gee, why do Linux users need that "Rosetta Stone" web page for
describing the differences between the different distros'
commands?
Usability refers to the ease with which someone can use something. Is accessing a function intuitive? How many steps does it take to complete a task? Can a user find what they need?
The usability of Linux depends entirely on its configuration. Which distro are you using? Are you using Gnome, KDE, or something else? How's it set-up? What options have been defaulted?
There is no one, single answer as to Linux's usability. But most installations of Linux aren't that usable, which is why the market is so limited to techies who seem to get-off on that very fact, and prefer to use their power tools with the safety guards removed, so to speak.
The battle or the war, right now is between MS and the rest of the world, particularly the hardware manufacturers. And this war is about, what are the applicable key standards, and how do we keep these standards "OPEN" and not proprietary MS patents. MS is struggling hard to prevent the commoditizing of these software systems, and the establishing of "OPEN" standards. That is exactly contrary to NON-MONOPOLY and fair competition. Which model do you think will win the war in the end? Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker?
write code, decipher error messages and the terminal is off
limits. I use my computer. I am a user. I drive a car but I can
not break it down to its components and rebuild it, nor do I wish
to. Same with my computer. I don't want a do-it-yourself kit. I
don't need to prove how smart I am. I just need a system that I
can use to get things done. Linux can do that but, it still needs
some work to be "out of the box" usable by most people. I don't
see why that would be a bad thing. It would still be Linux, right?
Or is it only Linux when you have to bust your brain to make it
work?
and KDE projects are the focus for improving
Grandma's usability. The kernel does not need
to cater to Grandma. Let Linus and the geeks
rule within the purvue of the kernel, cli, and
so on.
Linux machine, we can buy a Mac.
Are you serious? That's the most laughably shallow claim I've read
all week, especially considering it's possible to run Linux on Intel-
based Macs.
I went through various Windows, looked at various Linux distros,
used a couple of them, then decided that I didn't want to HAVE
to be an admin to use my computer.
Why is it all you anti-Mac people always bring up the "Macboy"
****?
Can't think of anything better?
At least I don't have to recompile my kernel to include
something I usually had to compile, once I upgraded my gcc
libraries in order to play a friggin mp3 or something!
"Try to do half of what you can do with a Linux box on a Windows or Mac machine and I guarantee you'll be begging for mercy."
...but he forgets to do one thing in his blog post. Reisinger fails to mention even one of these tasks that you can do with Linux, but can't do with Windows or a Mac. Aside from tweak the kernel with your own code, what specific business or personal task can you accomplish only with Linux? Anybody? Anybody?
Seriously....what business or personal need cannot be addressed by Windows or Mac?
Sorry for being a bit nasty, but you don't have a clue. Linux is NOT having an identity crisis. Instead what we have is a disagreement over the future of software between five groups:
1) The Hackers - let's face it, many of these people want nothing other than to hack. They want to add new features, modify existing features, and build the best product possible.
2) The Free Software People - they want software to be free. They agree with the hackers on some issues, but not all. The free software people think that the GPL is the best method of reaching their goals.
3) The BSD People - they agree with both the Free Software people and the hackers on many issues, the disagreement that exists is on the methods used.
4) The Corporations - OK, they want to make money. There's nothing wrong with that, and many of the people in 1, 2, and 3 are hired solely to improve software on corporate time.
5) The Monopoly - They have one concern, and one concern only. To destroy everyone in 1, 2, 3, and 4, because their monopoly is threatened.
To a large extent those who are part of 1, 2, 3, and 4 are in agreement on a lot of the issues. Yeah, they fight. It's part of the culture. It's part of what drives improvement. It's not a threat to the community, it's part of being in the community.
The Monopoly on the other hand has a vested interest in destroying the community. It's a threat to them, and it's a threat that they can't handle, because they can't buy it, and don't appear to be capable of building a software package of the same quality.
Wayne
- This story is lame.
-
by vexorian
September 22, 2007 8:29 PM PDT
- Con Kolivas: all news, it is FUDish to try to add heat to that flame, nobody cares about a single developer quiting, really, it is just a guy.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 36 Comments >>"You also probably know that these two entirely different ideas could create three possible paths Linux can take for the future: stay geeky and appeal to the advanced tech guru in all of us; go mainstream and leave the advanced functionality and reliable kernel behind to compete with Microsoft and Apple; or face a "civil war" that could lead to total Linux"
This paragraph raised my internal "this is BS" alarm, it is just wrong.
Why?, seriously, why do we need to drop the advanced kernel guru and reliability to compete MS and Apple? That's quite a long shot man, it does not make any sense at all and you state it as fact. Also, what the heck? How is the third option a Linux civilian war? It looks like many stories are getting fund recently to promote the views on Linux as a divided community, please don't feed them if you are really such a great Linux fan as you try to show.
1. We don't need to sacrifice usability to appeal to grand ma. Man, this whole ubuntu thing uses your same kernel you like so usable and it does appeal grand ma, if anything that kind of totally non-technology savvy users are perfect market for open source, these friendly open source distros need to use your beloved kernel because ... a) it is so flexible it can even be used for that. b) it is open source.
2. How, really how distros remove any of the outstanding usability and security you like so much on Linux? You do figure that none of them make the user unable to open a terminal, compile a new kernel, or uninstall X completely and do everything in text mode?
3. Linux should stay Linux yes, and that's exactly the reason it should be able to do everything, you know, open source licenses promote the removal of use restrictions, and if we want we can use your beloved Linux kernel for mainstream, and if we do this will not make you unable to use it for your advanced stuff... It is all open source we both can do whatever we want.
4."And with an unending supply of readers who live and die on Mossberg's every word, this was the kiss of death for Ubuntu on a Dell." yeah, right. Although it is marketed not as the ultimate usability experience but exactly as something for power users.
5. You seem to think that mainstream means unstable, which is false.
6. Mac OS is not easier, I don't care.
7. Ubuntu goes mainstream and 'will always be free' is part of the manifesto ... And even if the intention of all the guys that want it to go mainstream was to commercialize it ... You will still be able to use your happy hard core Linux that feeds your ego so well. Because... it is open source.
8. Historically, also, contributions to the kernel or payments to the developers (some of them they need to eat, you know) do come from enterprises.
9. I for one want Linux to go mainstream, mostly because it will force software and hardware developers to target Linux, what does that mean? I will not have to boot windows just to use my scanner, or to use photoshop. And I like ubuntu Linux because as easy as it is it is also very customizable and flexible. When I see somebody saying that these easy to use distros are restrictive I think to myself "this dude doesn't know what he is talking about" And anyways, nothing, absolutely nothing stops you from using your favorite Linux setup even if it is from scratch, and if Linux did go mainstream nothing would prevent you from continuing doing what you like. Because the developers are like you, so it is unlikely they would lock you out on this.
10. When I say mainstream I think 15% in my opinion more than that is both impossible and unnecessary . I think about firefox and how in 2007 it is idiotic to make a web page that can only be opened in IE, there was a time in which that was feasible, not anymore. And firefox achieved so without a 50% , not to mention that although mozilla does make money, firefox, the open source browser is still available for everyone and we got things like swiftfox. And it is so damn flexible yet it works well for the guys that are more used to IE.
I am posting this from ubuntu 7.04 , it was initially easy to use but since I am a poweruser I ended up tweaking it to the extreme, it didn't block me from doing it, I got a patched kernel and some optimization configuration, etc...