I have to agree with this because there have been viruses that have affected Linux as well, they're just not as "popular" as other more mainstream OSes are. That said, I firmly believe in using the "ounce of prevention" approach when it comes to viruses/malware regardless of the OS used. Furthermore, there are free alternatives (very good ones, too) to accomplish those same tasks within all OSes.

I would vote that I don't care what OS other people use, and that really is the truth. However, there is a reason I see for bringing a particular OS mainstream and that's to create a large enough user base so software companies bring support to that OS.

What he said.

More mainstream means more device drivers and more ported applications

As long as Linux stays Linux, then YES!

Here's what makes Linux Linux (IMO):
* we call it free because the user is free (DRM-less, source code available, etc)
* I can swap out one component for another (KDE/GNOME is a classic example)
* I can tweak my system to act the way I want it to act

Here's why I want Linux to become mainstream:
* better hardware/software support
* no longer having to use reversed-engineered implementations of proprietary tech (yes, Office, I mean YOU!)
* DRM and other proprietary evils are gone forever
* more software testers ("given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow")
* more commercially funded developers

It's kind of silly to see that some will measure their ego in bits. "If its becomes to easy, then no, thanks...". If there is a demand, why shouldn't people build a "dumbed down" Linux? And what is dumbed down? I'm pretty sure most of the complainers don't even know much at all about the windows they call dumbed down. It's despicably propietary, I'll grant you that - but easy? Have a walk around the register, have a look at the many fine-grained controls provided by the Pro editions of windows... Then tell which is easier, Linux or Windows. Just because it can be easy doesn't mean it has to be.

All in all, I am very much in favour of Linux becoming mainstream. As pointed out, it will mean better hardware support. Already I am seeing the real men running their real men's distros on hardware that would never have been supported if it hadn't been for the growing popularity something like Ubuntu. Inevitably it will also mean that Linux is going to be affected by at least some of the security issues that are affecting windows. Which is fine by me. Time to see who really knows his or her Linux.

I have my reservations about proprietary applications being ported to Linux however. If they get open sourced, then that would be just fine. But just adding some dark goo on top of Linux isn't going to do anyone any good.

If you mean "would you like to see more people use Linux?" then yes.

If you mean "would you like Linux to become a free Windows?" then definitely no.

The problem with this list is that most of this stuff can't happen and I'll explane why.

Better hardware support, as long as companys are partners with Microsoft this will not happen, look at the example of ATI/Nvidia along time ago ATI used to be so far up Microsoft's ass it was not funny, when AMD bough them out this changed. Today AMD/ATI Do make open source drivers, nVidia does not, why? Why do you think?

Reverse engineering will always be apart of Linux, even if it became more mainstream this wouldn't change, their are file system driver other then NTFS that only have read support, there are devices Windows doesn't have drive for that are reverse engineered from other operating systems. It's about getting things to work, that will never change unless the committed patches are somehow regulated, (now we are playing with fire because you now have a committee deciding the growth of Linux, that reverse engineered drive, or format could actually be better then the original.

DRM will never be gone they will just make binary blobs so that DRM can exist and Linus himself has said he doesn't have a problem with it, as long as it doesn't completely take over the kernel itself.

More software testers? That's odd, open source it noted to be the fastest method of finding bugs and fixing them, I am not sure this has any impact what so ever.

Personally I don't like commercial developers, take Croteam for example they have not release a proper port of any of there software yet, why? Because they feel it's there software and they can do what they want with it, I'd rather not have broken software hanging around Linux.

I would definitely love Linux to become more mainstream. I'll explain why I said "yes".

Back when I was in High School, my school started with antique Apples. I loved those to bits. I just insert a cartridge and I'm on my merry way. Its how I learned to type in Qwerty. I also enjoyed their one old Mac though I had to clear the cache every few hours.

The 2nd year, they got new computers and we learned DOS. It was more complicated than Apple since now I wasn't inserting a cartridge. Now I had to TELL the compy what to do, using an unusual form of English known as DOS code. Suffice it to say, it was a pain and I hated it.

The 3rd year, we had Windows 3.1 to learn. Now this was cool! It had a GUI, which made it easier to work with. I enjoyed it a lot and had my fair share of fun with various DOS games on it. I could finally concentrate less on DOS code. I just couldn't remember code well and I was tired of referencing the info in my textbook.

The 4th year, we had Windows 95 to learn. It was a huge change from the look of Windows 3.1; but it did have a different way of storing your programs and listing them. It had too many options, but I gradually accustomed to it and enjoyed it. However, it had problems compared to 3.1; for one thing, it crashed a little often. The second, the warning messages were just as cryptic as ever. And as usual, if a driver or important software was needed or whatever, they didn't provide it. You had to search for it, figure out where it had to go, put it in, reboot it, then hope that worked. You'd never know if you had grabbed the right version, but you hoped to God you did.

I moved and had to deal with Windows 98 Second Edition. It wasn't as crashy as Windows 98, but it was still the same complicated Windows, with the cryptic messages for errors and the same little help given if something was missing or wrong. I also had to learn something else... that Windows had viruses and malware and other badware that it was weak to. So I had to deal with antivirus, antimalware, firewall, and hoped it was enough.

Then, after a huge compy upgrade, Windows XP. It was much better than the previous ones [but I still felt Windows 3.1 was better than the rest], but as much as I enjoyed Windows XP, there was a problem. The error messages were still cryptic, and this version of Windows also didn't help you with any repair, missing files, errors, etc., issues. I am NOT the type to take a compy to techs. Besides, I can't afford that tripe. I prefer to fix things myself. However, Windows XP had a bad weakness to various badware and viruses due to the cable internet. No matter what firewall, antivirus, antimalware, anti-anything I installed and ran and kept updated and other upkeep...it wasn't enough. I had to hook it up to a non-wired router after the nightmare of insecure wireless. Even after I perfected my "security plan", when I found out it wasn't enough and had to install Returnil...

I finally said I had enough. There has to be a better OS. I've already read various reviews of Vista and was unwilling to use that. I was worried Linux would be too hard for stupid me. So I tried to find an easy version of Linux. One that used plain English and would help me with itself. Like it was somewhat interactive. Despite my long journey in the world of computers, I was still a novice and I hated anything that involved code. I even gave up on learning HTML and XHTML. Its just too hard. I also have been changing over to Dvorak as Qwerty was too hard on my hands and fingers.

I almost gave up on my search for a Linux that would be easy. I found Ubuntu. It was almost the answer to my prayers. I say almost, because it was too difficult to install. So I was disheartened. Then a Linux tech told me about Wubi. I used that to install Ubuntu. Now THAT was easy! Sure, it required Windows, but it was an easy install. I find I still have to do a minimum of code every now and then, but for the most part, Ubuntu Linux is the OS I have been thirsting for. If Linux had been mainstream, I don't think I would've had to suffer with Windows as long as I had, and to boot...more games would work on Linux if it was mainstream. More software would've had on the side of the box: Linux, Mac, Windows.

If there had been no Linux, I would've given up on computers altogether. A world with Microsoft is a world I want to stay away from. Computers SHOULD have choices for their users. Computers are not people that say "I hate you! I want Windows!". They are computers that needs YOU and your input. Why should we be forced to "Microsoft"ing computers? If we do not work hard to mainstream Linux, then computers will become Microsoft computers with little to no leeway. If that happens and there's no way for me to Wubi Ubuntu any computer I should own... I have no choice but to shun computers entirely. At least Microsoft will never convert paper and pen.

Well that was a lot more touchy-feely philosophy than I like, but I wouldn't mind comparing notes on one part.
Antique? I'll tell you about antique.

I didn't get to use my first computer until my very last semester in high school. We had time-sharing accounts on an IBM360 at a local college. CRTs were not common yet, and in fact, we didn't have any. Our keyboards were teletypes. We saved our programs on the remote computer's disk and on punched tape.

That was lots of fun.

Computer? Geez, I didn't know what one was until AFTER I had graduated high school. I guess if getting one in your final year of high school qualifies as being ancient, what would that make the rest of us?

Of course Linux should be more main stream!
The fact is that there is a pattern going on:

0: Analog electronics (I'm talking bulb radio here) used to cost a fortune but they led to...
0: Digital electronics. The old dinosaurs of times gone by. In turn dinosaur mainframes brought us to...
0: Software which has got right out of hand which doesn't really matter because support is the next big business.

Any way Linux has this role because BSD uses the painful boot0 loader that
is to painful for most people, the society of hackers is more introverted
and it just isn't as polished on the command line (yes the technology
is astounding and the code beautiful but BSD only suits technically
inclined types).

They are partners with M$ because M$ is the mainstream OS company. If Linux becomes at least as mainstream as Window$ then they will make drivers for Linux as wellI know that people will continue to reverse-engineer for Linux. I meant that proprietary software will, probably slowly, be replaced by open source software.But the binary blobs can be removed. A core concept of DRM is that it cannot be removed. More importantly, you already stated that reverse engineering will continue so that inferior proprietary solutions can be replaced by superior open source ones.
Exactly, open source is noted to be the fastest method of finding bugs and fixing them. The more people using the open source software, the faster bugs can be discovered. Also, more users means more potential developers who may have otherwise worked for proprietary corporations.Agreed 100%.

I voted no.....


The reason that I voted that way is that I don't want Linux to become like Windows or Mac . When I say Windows or Mac I mean I hate it in Mac
when there is a gui to do everything. I really don't want Linux to be
the OS that you call Tech support for. If you do get a halfway logical reply they will take you thru every little step to do it. Instead of saying this is what you do... Goodbye. /* I am not bashing tech support people in any way. I have had some bad experiences with
the tech support at my company. I know not all of them are like that
so if you are one I am not talking about you in any way */


If going mainstream mean more commerical apps and better software drivers then I will retract my vote.

To sum it all up: I don't want lazy people who want the Computer
to work when instead of shutting it down they just unplug it. Then when
it doesn't work they call the manufacturer and complain to them because
Windows won't boot. Like some poeple said in earlier posts I would hate if there would be a distro that hid the command line from the users because its too hard

PS: I hope that I didn't come off a litte strong in this post.
I am very passionate about that subject

Don't worry, you're in good company.