Is the eventual goal of Linux to be viable competition with the other operating systems?

Do people want it to be an alternative to the other OS's, or do people want it to be completely separate and not even put into a similar category, or do people want it to be something completely different from those examples?

With Vista, MS's worst most intrusive operating system yet--having all its issues, and with so many people not wanting to switch over, will the role of Linux change because of Vista?

What is the eventual goal of Linux? What destination is planned for it?

I don't think Linux has any objective whatsoever. Users do. For example, some users believe Linux has to crush Microsoft at any cost, because MS/Windows is <insert whatever they think here>. Other don't really care about other Operating Systems. Some has only used Linux for years and enjoy it. They don't really care what is going on elsewhere.

The same concept goes to distributions, such as Debian goals are different from SuSE´s(apparently).

But answering what is the main goal of Linux is really difficult to say, because I don't think there is one single goal to achieve.

My two cents.

I don't think the success or failure of Vista will have a (big) impact in Linux. That is because Linux simply is not strongly market (at least where I live). I believe OSX will see a considerable amount of users switching, but not by a large number.

Remember when Win 98 dominated? Well, back then noone, I mean it, noone wanted to use Windows XP. Why? They thought it was too expensive, too demanding for their hardware, etc. Today, it is a fact that the majority of Windows users are XP users.

Now Vista is out and the very same arguments are being used again. I had the chance to try Windows Vista and I liked it a lot. I did have a lot of problems running games with it (compatibility issues), but hey, a whole lot of my old games are today useless under Windows XP, so it is just the same thing all over again.

Unfortunately, my hardware is too modest to run Vista as it is intended to be (just like XP was back in the days). Otherwise I would be using it now. Just wait and see that the number of Vista users will increase soon enough. You can't (easily) find new PC's with XP anymore, for example.

Oh well, it is just a matter to wait and see ^_^;

Cool insights.

GNU/Linux doesn't need to have a final goal or destination. It's an end in itself. It's there for people who want it.

To continue to be successful with it's stated intent of:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

I thought GNU/Linux goal was to take over the world....
anyway, as long as there is a free distro around, I can't care less what MS does....

dammit.... who messed up with my anti-paranoia shot?

I think that there ARE goals set for Linux and Open-source---they just are not set in traditional ways.

This new development paradigm is all about community, consensus, and peer pressure. Through a melange of communications in diverse fora and media, the community moves in some fairly specific directions---just as if the individuals were responding to the more traditional management methods.

And how does the old-stlye business model react? Well--in one case--they take a cue from the great depression and go into the protection business...

It should be noted that Linux is already serious competition, particularly in the server space. Would Microsoft invest so much in the "Get the Facts (FUD)" campaign if they did not think that Linux was a long-term threat to their business?

You should phrase your question in terms of either desktop Linux or server Linux because they are (at least) two different things, both of which have made huge advances.

The thing many Windows oriented people don't seem to quite grasp is that the Linux community as a whole doesn't really care about the market or what it does. many of us choose to use Linux because it works for us and really couldn't care less what anyone else chooses to use. We simply aren't commercially oriented (much like Frank Zappa).

Depends - Linux is not really an OS.Don't like RMS but he has a point there - heck you couldn't even compile a Linux kernel without GNU software.
GNU and Linux have very different things in mind when you get into the details.

You can learn all about how much they like each other here:

http://www.gnu.org/

i prefer this kind of thread ...

>> "The thing many Windows oriented people don't seem to quite grasp is that the Linux community as a whole doesn't really care about the market or what it does. many of us choose to use Linux because it works for us and really couldn't care less what anyone else chooses to use. We simply aren't commercially oriented (much like Frank Zappa)."

only because others have taken care of that very nicely for you ... ??


ok , seriously ...

probably only when windows users could grasp what windows system implies then they can grasp what linux can do for them easily ...


.

No, because it's a totally different mindset (which was my point). There are of course commercial distros, but I was speaking of the community itself. Some distros certainly aim to be commercial, while others do not. The majority of Linux users choose to use it because it works for them. If it didn't they would use something else.

in my opinion ... should have the linux community(as a whole) care about and support whatever process of commercialization and the usage of linux distro on buisness and homes machines ... its good for the usages of free "version" of linux(which should not be the "outmost" majority) ...


.