Just for the cause...

Doesn't matter, I use what works for me, not what works for the masses.

What does becoming more mainstream mean?

------------------
Steve Stites

I read it as meaning that the majority of users of Windows would turn off their computers and not turn them on again.

No. I can't say I care, I'm a Linux user - not a follower or fanatic.

Linux is very mainstream. It's a common term in embedded, server and supercomputer markets.

It's pretty much only the gamer, home and office markets where it's not at least a significant minority.

At the end of the day, it's not about beating a monopoly just to replace it; the big companies are talking about innovation, and people are starting to expect choice in the market place again; I think Linux is in a very good place right now. Some hardware vendors are even opening up their specifications, which was unheard of ten years ago.

It's not about winning; it's about market choice and collaborative effort. And it's not without problems but it works well enough for me; I haven't run anything but Linux for nearly nine years now.

Linux is OK as it is. With a lot of different distributions and the possibility for full customization it is best suited to serve the specific request of users, communities and companies alike.

'Mainstream' in the sense of a "one size fits all" solution means a lot of compromises. It also means restrictions. I don't want that.

I don't mind being a 'one-percenter' in terms of IT.

Linux Archive

I have to totally disagree with your conclusion FranDango. More mainstream just means more people are using the kernel. It doesn't mean that those of us who are already using Linux are going to have to be forced to use a distro that takes away our empowerment.

That is the beauty of GPL'd code. Once something is GPL'd anything that is created by it stays available for us to tweak to our own desires.

The side-effects of a more mainstream Linux that I can see are: hardware support will be more forthcoming, commercial apps will more likely be ported, and Linux jobs will become more easily found.

2 more pennies to the pile,

Forrest

No computer store wants to have "free" software or an operating system that requires no additions like anti-virus because they can't make money giving it away. They don't get to make bucks by fixing Linux OS.
It doesn't require fixing as a rule. How can you expect stores and shops to sponsor Linux when it is FREE?
They won't. They are basically only in it for the buck so forget trying to think Linux will ever become mainstream. Not gonna happen.

Same here.

Yes - but only because going mainstream would mean more support from software companies, which in turn would mean more software (games, business software and the like).

I voted "No", but I have very mixed feelings on this.

I fear that "mainstream" really means "dumbed down enough for people who hate to learn anything."

There are a lot of people who actually get offended when I assume they might either know something or be willing to learn something. That attitude is so offensive to me that I'm willing to withhold Linux from them.

If mainstream doesn't mean losing the control and choice we have, then yes, it would be a good thing - we'd get more hardware and software from the big vendors. If it meant more lock in and less choice, then I'm happy to stay as we are.

I'd like to see more people using Linux (or OSX - but PLEASE abandon MS!). Personally I can't see it happening - too much proprietary software depending on the hordes of "anti-piracy" crapware that runs on MS products. So although I'd like to see more Linux users, I won't lose any sleep if the hordes stick with WinDuhs - that's their problem, not mine.

I voted no because I fear it would lead to what KenJackson said. I can't imagine a Linux distro that hides the CLI the way Windows does. Also, most Windows users [that I know] just surf the web, play games and give half of their RAM to either Norton or McAfee. If that's what the "mainstream" is let Windows keep it.