jludwig wrote:
On Tuesday 27 September 2005 17:15, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 27, 2005 9:57 AM -0600 Guy Fraser
<guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Linux distributions need to get back to their roots if they
want to survive. They will hang on lingering with support
from only die hard fans, but like me after enough abuse they
will start loose interest too. It will take innovation and
listening to what the users expect and want, to re-invigorate
the user base if Linux distributions are to survive.
You presume that all Linux users are alike, and that all distributions
cater to all users. While it's nice to sell Linux to the masses to gain
more hardware support, they've never been the core constituency.
The major differences may not be visable from a gui like Gnome or KDE, but
they are very apparent for those who must administer complex systems. In fact
this is where Linux has had the greatest impact.
Control of the system is complete with Linux, unlike MS systems, and this is
not apparent unless you worked with these systems where unusual issues, or
problems have arisen. On a Linux system terminal you can directly work on the
system and programs as root without any controls form the operating system.
Using the configuration gui's will allow a new or unskilled user to
effectively manage a typical system. Gui's also allows for faster
administration, but, when a system is used for heavier technical use such as
a server, gateway, firewall, etc., the need for complete -> direct <-
control makes linux a much more flexable and viable system to use.
As far as "die hard fans" are concerned the issue is more ease of use. Those
who are skilled, myself included, actually find Linux easier to use and
administer.
Another issue is the rapidity in which patches (especially security patches)
are available. For any secured system this is a major issue.
For get "die hard fans" it is the most practical system available.
The news sounds good that Microsoft will try to produce a managable
operating system. Some of the points that Linux would be endangered by
allowing severe bloat, excessive complexity within the OS are also true
factors.
I used to be a "die hard" windows fan when W95 was first released and
even bought MSOffice. After running W95 and RHL 5.2 for awhile and
becoming exposed with the strengths and the weaknesses of both types of
operating systems, I became more of a Linux "die hard". The influencing
factors that tilted the tables toward Linux (RHL 5.2) was the support
for open source from WordPerfect, RealAudio and Netscape 4.x series
browsers. Windows 95 sort of leveled itself to a lower platform by its
inferior features of auto-configuring all of the hardware settings from
working settings to settings which did not work to make room for new
hardware. What happened in my case was the system modem and the
soundcard worked. After adding a network card, IRQs and other settings
were changed which broke the modem and soundcard. Another factor was
setting up RHL 5.2 just worked for getting connected to the Internet.
Windows 95 did not even install TCP/IP when a network card was
installed. This led me to calling my ISP and complaining that I could
not get windows to connect. I could however connect with Linux without
any problems. Of course, the phone support staed that Linux was
unsupported anyway. I replied again that it was Windows that would not
work and got the phone support.
Thereafter, I preferred Linux over Windows for most things. I had to
dual boot for things Linux would not do for some time. (CD burning,
cameras and such). Now, I look at Windows as something that is force
sold for most computers. You pay for it anyway, why not use it to fill
in the dead spots still left in Linux.
Windows was broken for a long time. They have the resources to make an
OS that works. I do not think that Linux is endangered yet. Maybe from
some programs that appeal to different distributions, but other programs
that actually work are not used instead. I see the sway away from Distro
specific tools for Linux distros. Though I am not even going to
anticipate how successful or how much of a failure any particular OS
will be in the future.
Jim
--
QOTD:
If it's too loud, you're too old.
