Linux and its identity crisis

The main reason why Linux is not ready for consumers is lack of drivers and connsumer software (games,media players ...). On everything elese it is on par or better then windows. If my 6 Yrs old son can use ubuntu and windows XP to get to his games then everyone else can. If Linux resolve problems with drivers and software it will be god by windows
Posted by DS on Monday, September 24 2007 04:42 PM

Most Linux developers are being paid by companies (including Linus). Linux is already mainstream in the server market so most companies pay for features in that area. Now companies are using Linux for the embedded market and so we are seeing serious kernel development in that area too. But no one is paying too much attention to the desktop features except some freelancers. The real issue with Con Kolivas was political in nature. You just need to know how to handle Linus. Desktop features in the kernel are being developed, but not so quickly as features with the server or embedded.
Posted by Felipe Contreras on Monday, September 24 2007 06:11 PM

"And if we want a pretty machine with far less functionality than Linux, we can get OS X" Have you ever used OS X? Do you even have any REAL experience with Unix like OS' at all? It certainly does not sound so claiming a BSD based OS' to be "far less functional" than Linux.
Posted by Carl on Monday, September 24 2007 08:38 PM

How does anyone stand to make money off a free OS becoming more mainstream? I want Linux to be easier to use so that I and all of my friends can all switch to Linux for most of our computing without getting totally pissed off. I'm sorry if that upsets your "omg i r teh l33t l1nux h4xx0r" mentality.
Posted by anonymous on Monday, September 24 2007 08:40 PM

Complete drivel. Your first two paragraphs are discussions about essentially unrelated issues. Which makes everything following them very suspect. Linus Torvalds and his "minions" have very little, if anything, to do with the overall usability of Linux distributions. He focuses exclusively on the Linux kernel. The average end-user is going to deal directly with the Linux kernel about as much as you or I would dance naked in the antarctic on a cold day. If you'd started off talking about Shuttleworth versus Stallman or something more relevant, I'd tend to agree. There's definitely a rift between the "make it work" and "make it free" camps. But if you'd been following Linux anytime during the past 15 years, you'd know that it's not really new or newsworthy. c.
Posted by C Beauregard on Monday, September 24 2007 08:42 PM

The fact that you can buy a Dell which will work with Linux out of the box shows drivers won't be an issue. Also, there are games, there's also PC games that work under Linux using a win32 API layer. The biggest problem for Linux is the identity issue. Unix is pretty archaic and only Apple have moved things forward by making OSX a Unix style OS but easy to use and robust.
Posted by Giles Jones on Monday, September 24 2007 09:03 PM

I'm confused. What does a kernel developer spat that should have been forgotten, have to do with the future paths of linux? Con Kolivas was behind the power curve, because some else had ALREADY come up with a better idea to do the same thing and more. Linux is my desktop. It's stable, except for some the beta stuff I run on it.
Posted by James on Monday, September 24 2007 09:03 PM

This is a completely specious argument because you're comparing 2 different things. You use the term 'Linux', but what you're talking about relates to DISTRIBUTIONS, not the Linux Kernel. The Linux Kernel has SOME bearing on usability in the sense that yes driver support is primarily a kernel function, but even at that drivers themselves are only a peripheral (pun intended) aspect of the kernel. Usability has MUCH more to do with how a GNU/Linux DISTRIBUTION is organized and presented than it has to do with kernel architecture. Setup of peripherals, system configuration, package management, etc are not kernel issues and thus have NOTHING to do with Linus or the rest of the Linux Kernel development process. They supply a POSIX compliant Unix-like OS kernel, that's all they do. How Ubuntu or Red Hat or Novell package that up into an OS distribution determines what the OS looks like to users and how friendly it may be to non-technical people. This is the great thing about Linux, there's no need for, and IMHO no danger, of any kind of 'split' or choice between a technical excellence and usability. At worst one distro can emphasize ease of setup and driver availability at the expense of other considerations while another can server a different audience of, for example, IT professionals building corporate infrastructure. Frankly I don't even see where it is necessary for a single distribution to draw such a distinction in the first place. The idea that you can't have both technical excellence AND a user friendly OS is an entirely unwarranted and unsupported assertion.
Posted by Abdul Alhazred on Monday, September 24 2007 09:18 PM

Article is a flamebait fluff-piece demonstrating no understanding of the development process or even what Linux actually is. Extra points for somehow confusing the argument with absurdly out-of-place political demagoguery. Congratulations on posting this unresearched mal-informed FUD as an "article", you knob.
Posted by Andy on Monday, September 24 2007 09:20 PM

Before one claims that the Mac is "far less functional" they may want to have some proof. I have been using Linux and BSD for 10 years and currently have a Mac as my main desktop. I haven't found much that I can't do on my Mac that I could in the Linux/BSD world. I'm actually finding things that continue to surprise me; like the fact that Mac's just use IPFW for a firewall or that I can just call python from the terminal. And with MacPorts, one can easily install most any open source software with the port install command. It's funny that an OS that copied UNIX is being labeled as more functional than an OS that can actually call itself UNIX www.macnn.com...
Posted by Tom Grove on Monday, September 24 2007 09:21 PM

Obviously, Mr. Mossberg hasn't given PCLinuxOS 2007 a try yet. Because if he did, I think he just might change his mind. I'm using this os right now to type this response and I'm extremely happy. Its robust, easy to use and very secure. In fact, I invite everyone to give PCLinuxOS 2007 a try.
Posted by Joseph Alampi on Monday, September 24 2007 09:22 PM

While using linux for the past 12 years, and being very relieved the first moment that I could leave Windows behind, linux proved to be the most usable OS ever. This discussion and 'split' between server and desktop usage has been going on for the past 12 years. There are dozens of linux distributions out there, some more server-oriented, some more user oriented. Some using KDE, some Gnome, some something else. There is choice. There is no one linux. There isn't even just one kernel; real power-users sometimes prefer to use forks of the linux kernel maintained by other people than linus, for choices linus made, for experimenting with computers, or for whatever reasons. That is what makes linux brilliant, you have choice.
Posted by Merijn Vogel on Monday, September 24 2007 09:25 PM

I know of a few mainstream linux machines aimed squarely at "Joe Average": Sharp Zaurus and Nokia N800 for example. Countless kiosk-type terminals run Linux. Those are just few of the examples that are easy to find. So while Debian may not be an alternative for Grandma, then Linux is definitelly the best choice for many non-tecnical professionals. No contradiction anywhere to be seen.
Posted by anonymous on Monday, September 24 2007 09:34 PM

Why should Linux attempt to "go mainstream"? Because Microsoft needs serious competition --- something it has never had to face -- because of a slick licensing agreement devised by Bill G's father's law firm in 1983. Ever since, the world has paid a terrible price - most people have no conception of what a good computer system is. Now, Linux offers a priceless opportunity to break the pattern we've all suffered under for 25 years. Torvalds is being selfish and myopic -- so is the author.
Posted by anonymous on Monday, September 24 2007 09:48 PM

So, if I want wireless to work "out of the box", or for that matter MP3 support, I'm a liberal just out to make money? Forget you! If Linux loses decent laptop support -- not in terms of device drivers but in performance value -- I'm sure the BSD guys will be happy to come up with a distro to fit the bill. Then Linux can be very happy sticking to its "principles" while the BSD crowd gets the last laugh after all. And that would be the end of result of a "civil war": Canonical releases Ubuntu 8.0, based on PCBSD.
Posted by Proteus71 on Monday, September 24 2007 10:14 PM

Just "three possible paths"? I don't thinks so. how about a checkbox that lets me pick my kernel scheduler when the kernel is being compiled (or possibly even a flag at boot time). Do I want improved user interactivity, or do I want resource heavy jobs to get the most clock time? If enough active kernel developers want something done, it happens over night. No civil wars or forks required.
Posted by anonymous on Monday, September 24 2007 10:16 PM

Ok. First, I think people are nuts to try to make money on open source software. It's not the software you should be making money on, it's the APPLICATION OF the software where the money is. Next, I think this guy is right on. To forget about what makes Linux so go so you can sell it, you should just go sell Windows boxes. Also, what version of Linux are you using that it's "not user-friendly"? I have people hopping on my Ubuntu lap-top and they can get everything done with ease and have no problem. So what if it takes a click of a bottin there to get the drivers running or something! It's not that hard to find a geek who knows what there doing to set up your computer! People do it with Windows all the time! And finally, if your having driver problems, that's because you were lazy and did no research AT ALL to find what works. There are companies now advertising that they have NVidia and Atheros chip-sets in their lap-tops and HP makes software for their printers and LISTS the compatable printers to that software! If you are complaining now, go back to your Windows box.
Posted by Nicholas Bates on Monday, September 24 2007 10:18 PM

Far less usability? OSX? Are you kidding? Name one thing, just one single thing, that linux does that OSX doesn't. Obviously you've never heard of fink or opendarwin. You remind me of an idiot I spoke to recently who tried to claim OSX wasn't a true unix just because he was too stupid to find the Terminal.app in the Utilities folder. Just because OSX hides the advanced stuff from the 'typical' users (as it should), does not mean this functionality isn't there! Do you research before making such nonsense comparisons please. And on another note: I once thought I needed a pcmcia slot in my laptop, and a modem, and a removable cd/dvd drive. Someone somehow talked me into buying a macbook pro and then it became so abundantly clear how little I actually require these 'features' now. Expresscard/34 3g modem, USB for everything, decent _single_ li-ion battery with 4hrs constant use and about 2 days standby and fixed dvd drive... I was nuts thinking I was gaining anything with the archaic useless 'features' I had saught after.
Posted by anonymous on Monday, September 24 2007 11:20 PM

I like my Linux too, just the way it is. I'm a tinkerer. But seriously man, this article reeks of ignorance. Ever tried to get a tv tuner working under linux? Ever tried to get linux syncing with a pda? Ever tried to get linux to print high quality on a generic-yet-decent printer? (and by high quality I mean greater than 600dpi). Linux is great for tinkering, but stop fooling yourself! The funcionality you perceive is a figment of your imagination brought on by zealotness.
Posted by anonymous on Monday, September 24 2007 11:29 PM

1. So Macs have "far less functionality than a Linux machine" ? I think you meant "far less hackability". 2. The "making money v/s staying hackable" dichotomy misses the point entirely. It's not about making money, but making free software usable by the masses. Make Linux usable, and the money might follow, but that shouldn't be the aim. 3. We don't need technology for technology's sake. We can do away with the attitude of "My computer is so hard to use, very few people can use it. I can, that's why I'm so l337." Computers are tools to make life simpler, and better. It seems Linux folks would rather spend all weekend taking apart, and putting together the motorcycle, and polish every gear, than actually go riding. That MUST change!!!
Posted by Ashwin Dixit on Monday, September 24 2007 11:43 PM

You're mixing two arguments. You're automatically assuming that Con is asking for a mainstream "liberal" distribution to make money. Not at all. As a long time programmer and Linux user I am definitely all for more power over my system, but when mp3 playback is slow because of the way the kernel is handling things then there's nothing I can do with my system to make it do what I want. What Con has been fighting for is to improve performance for things desktop users see such as music and movies. Right now, since Linux is largely developed and funded by corporations you see more work being done on things like database handling. What your article should really say is that the two camps right now are individual users and corporate users, and the corporate developments are winning taking away the individual power that makes Linux great.
Posted by anonymous on Monday, September 24 2007 11:56 PM

"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." Examples please...
Posted by Carlo T. on Tuesday, September 25 2007 12:10 AM

Throw together a quick perl, python, or ruby script to process a text file, generate a web page. Compile a C, Fortran, Pascal, or Java program for your school computer science class. Create free of charge your own GOME or KDE desktop application to handle a specific way you wish to view your file system.
Posted by anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2007 12:27 AM

Not begging for mercy here! I jumped ship from Linux to Mac OS in 2002, and still run all my Linux applications alongside my Mac applications. The new crop of Intel Macs have let me even toss in the odd Windows app into the mix. I'm not sure what functionality my Mac supposedly lacks next to Linux, but it isn't hampering this software developer in the least.
Posted by Jonathan Patschke on Tuesday, September 25 2007 12:37 AM

"Let linux be linux be linux" and the idea that everyone's trying to commercialize it to address some faction of the market directly contradict each other. Let's be realistic here. What needs to happen is that someone who is a usability expert, and understands what end-user needs are should develop new front end components that utilize the core linux kernel, create true cross-compatibility with office (ie not openoffice), and leave the existing scientific linux community out of it. Telling anyone that a real unix kernel isn't end-user compatible when there are thousands of companies using OS-X out there makes no sense whatsoever. Someone needs to get off their duff and do some real work.
Posted by Matt Harrigan on Tuesday, September 25 2007 12:40 AM

You've got it backwards, it's Linus with the mainstream and Con Kalivas promoting individual desktop users. Linus's minions are the ones deserting performance for individual users and putting their effort into corporate performance. I'm not trying to take anything away from Linus or Linux. I'm an avid user and I love my system. I'm just saying you should get your facts straight.
Posted by anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2007 12:41 AM

For the record I'm a linux, winXP, openbsd user in that order. I'm confused by the comment that Linux is more powerful than a Mac. Can you give me some examples of what you can do on Linux that a Mac can't? When I go to conferences like BlackHat I see a lot of dedicated professional hackers (the good definition) using them. Exploit code is increasingly posted written for OSX rather than linux as was the historical norm. Simply put, the Mac offers all the ease of use without sacrificing the power to do al the low level stuff that a linux box does. Linux is too much of a PITA to get to work well. If I wanted to be tortured for my OS choice I'd use OpenBSD as my primary desktop.
Posted by Igmar Halprin on Tuesday, September 25 2007 12:44 AM

I thought the main argument between Linus and Con was that the main Linux kernel seems to be catering to the Enterprise crowd, while losing its lean and mean status for the desktops. In any case, I think you're wrong on multiple fronts. On one hand, I don't see any reason why Linux shouldn't hit the mainstream. To think that Linux should stay Linux implies an Us vs Them mentality, while the very core of Open Source is to allow people to modify the code as they wish. On the other hand, why bother with the lack of decent driver support - wireless and 3D accelerated display drivers - when MacOSX does pretty much what a *nix box can with Terminal and Fink? It would satisfy the tinkerer in you without making you want to tear your hair out, or limit your hardware choices.
Posted by Benton Lam on Tuesday, September 25 2007 01:03 AM

No rift really exists.. Why not make up a better one? Seriously, there seems to be a "linux rift" propeganda rush as of late. Slow news month, or is this a piad push? Ubuntu does not represent Linux. Linux is 'just' a kernel. That is all. It doesn't even give you a nice command prompt. Linux isn't something your grandmother should ever have to know about. Although you already know that ZDNet, but for some reason though it interesting to republish some retard's propaganda blog. Frank
Posted by Frank Russo on Tuesday, September 25 2007 01:29 AM

the article fails to mention GNU - an essential part of linux that has nadda to do with Linus. Please it's Linux/GNU or GNU/Linux
Posted by anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2007 02:29 AM

The Torvalds v. Kolivas argument, if indeed it exists, has nothing to do with UI, drivers, applications, or really anything of the sort. It's about optimizing the kernel for multimedia performance and other tasks central to today's consumer PC market. Saying Linux only has three possible paths is an extraordinarily irresponsible over simplification. Here's a fourth possible path: fork the kernel into desktop and server versions. It's what M$ did to bring us 98 and NT. I'm not saying it's the best option, but it shows there are more than three choices.
Posted by Scott Cushman on Tuesday, September 25 2007 03:04 AM

I disagree that the 'liberal' arm of Linux wants it to be more desktop oriented because of money. I think a majority of 'liberal' Linux users would like it to be a viable threat to Windows and Mac desktops everywhere. And why not? It has every chance to do that! But, I agree that if it were to be for the money then it shouldn't be sought after. I also agree that Linus and co. should just keep doing what they are doing... It's worked fine to present! :)
Posted by Mannequin on Tuesday, September 25 2007 03:12 AM

This whole debate seems silly. The idea was for Linux (the kernel) to behave as Linus wants; and to let the distribution vendors worry about making things easy. My wife and 4-year-old use Ubuntu and find it quite easy to use. I have the first Dell Insprion 1505N with Ubuntu pre-loaded and it worked perfectly right out of the box. In any case, complaints about Ubuntu are not the same as complaints about Linux, any more than complaints about a car would reflect what a subcontractor working on engine parts is doing. Mark
Posted by Mark on Tuesday, September 25 2007 08:50 AM

“if we want a pretty design with far less functionality than a Linux machine, we can buy a Mac.” Get a clue. Mac OS X is a full fledged UNIX underneath and anything I can do with Linux I can do on a Mac. As a professional UNIX system administrator, Mac OS X is amazing from the standpoint that when I go home I don’t have to fiddle with everything to get the normal tasks (web, music, movies, email, calendar) accomplished, they just work, but if I want to dive down to the nitty gritty, I can drop to a command line, compile apps, write shell scripts and whatever else needs doing. This is the level that Gnome/KDE can only try and achieve but is there already.
Posted by Lee Nevo on Tuesday, September 25 2007 08:51 AM

Don't make stupid conclusions. As if equating liberals and conservatives with the linux market are the same. That immediately polarizes the conversation and makes you look foolish. Also, don't assume it is to make money. Just because I want a desktop that works (Ubuntu) and doesn't require me to go searching for drivers and choosing a desktop shell etc, etc. doesn't mean I want to make money. I came back to linux after a long hiatus because they had finally matured to a point that I could get things done. You look foolish claiming that all people in the desktop market want to do is make money. Linux has always been functional but never has so many simple bugs been dodged immediately at installation.
Posted by Nick de Palma on Tuesday, September 25 2007 08:53 AM

Apparently I have shifted back in time 10 years, when the only people that used linux were unix zealots and bigots that jealously guarded their precious OS, and did everything in their power to discourage or prevent Windows "n00bs" from running linux. Linux is already becoming mainstream. Don't like it? Tough. You're trying to stir up controversy where there is none. You're trying to hold onto that shrinking sense of superiority that you flaunt over other computer users. "Oh, you use OSX? Yeah, well, it can't do what MY system does!" Do us all a favor and rm -rf /.
Posted by anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2007 09:44 AM

There is a direct precedent, albeit in the closed source arena. IBM attempted to compete with Microsoft with OS/2 and was doing quite nicely thank you in the server space with the server edition of OS/2 and LAN Server. Then along came the pressure to woo the desktop user to which IBM succumbed. OS/2 and Warp Connect quickly died through lack of application support, and with few applications few bought into the technology - and then the developer community dried up through lack of sales. Whilst Linux is Open Source I admire it for it's reliability, performance and ability to customise - and ship it whenever I can. And anyway - are we talking about the kernel here or distros? If they want another distro, there are so many out there that another one won't hurt. WRT the kernel, it's going where I want although they are being stingy with the bundled virtualisation of just kvm. Like filesystems, we'd like more choice than just KVM. Let's have OpenVZ and VServer support as well as options in the standard kernel.
Posted by wilf on Tuesday, September 25 2007 03:21 PM

The beauty of Linux is choice. If you desire a simpler, more user friendly Linux then choose Ubuntu or another Gnome based desktop. If you want an advanced, endlessly configurable desktop then choose Knoppix or Kubuntu or any KDE desktop version. Working on an older system? Then try the XFCE desktop; streamlined, efficient, runs well on limited resources. Innovation and choice, this is the great joy of Linux. Linux, an OS for both Grandma and her geek granddaughter.
Posted by Noah Spam on Tuesday, September 25 2007 10:51 PM

A Dell which will work with Linux out of the box? What corner of Disney World do you live in? When it comes to servers, fine, but Linux is not quite ready for the modern, mobile user just yet. I have an Inspiron 9400, good luck finding drivers for every component of this machine. If I could, I would not be stuck using WinXP. I can plug a USB disk into my Fedora server, but not one distro can give me support for everything I need, even if I exclude drivers for the networked Ricoh printer.
Posted by Paul on Friday, October 26 2007 02:36 AM