On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:40, Dustin Puryear wrote: <snip> > In its present form, Linux is a good solution for a number of markets, > but the OS doesn't have what it takes to be successful in the two most > important (i.e., profitable) ones: the consumer (i.e., desktop) and > > enterprise server markets. > > Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I know this reply is long, but please read on. You bring up a valuable point. I think that the one thing that Linux lacks, more than anything else, is a single driving vision. Which, in turn, brings up the question of; should that goal be merely to replace Windows? It's easy to forget why Linux was written in the first place, when we let ourselves lapse purely into the "Windows versus Linux" mindset. Linux was written as a freely available alternative to Unix, that could run on commodity-class computers. That was the goal in the beginning, but it certainly is not the goal now. The goal now -appears- to be to replace Windows. As much as we may all have a distaste for Windows, why should we strive to be like it? Why is it wrong for us to retain the ability to make numerous choices regarding our desktop? Certainly, this means that there's no unified guide to the user interface, and no code sharing, but do we really want that kind of restraint placed on us? That's one of the reasons why I am glad that there's both Gnome and KDE. I can use either one, as I choose to. Or both. Currently, I use Gnome, but it would be a non-issue for me to switch to KDE. I prefer Gnome, and it's approach. It's not like Windows. But, I must admit, a part of me asks, do I really want mainstream America using Linux? Mainstream America does not want choice, they just want it to work. Choice requires thought. Choice requires a more complex system of reconfigurability. This reconfigurability comes at a cost; it's harder to do. It requires a higher degree of technical skill. So do we "dumb down" Linux, so that it's more like Windows? I, personally, would just use Windows if that was the case. It has more commercial-quality games for it. I use Linux because it gives me a greater deal of control than Windows. I use Linux because it puts the tools to do really cool things in the palm of my hand. Sure, it's harder to use than Windows. But with that cost, comes a great boon. But all of this revolves back to the point of all of this; do we sacrifice freedom of choice, so that Linux is more accessible to the consumer market? I don't think a single one of you would say yes to that question. So, Linux will grow up, when Linux decides that it's time to be Linux, and stand on it's own merits, and quit trying to be like it's big, fault-ridden brother, Windows. Just like the Mac, Linux has to come into it's own. David
