As long as "mainstream" means that there will be more hardware support, I'm definitely all for it. I don't think that it means certain distributions will become closed source and less configurable, after all, that's the beauty of the OS. No matter if it goes more mainstream or not, it will always have a select audience that is willing to dive into the guts of their system and see "how it works" and not just be happy with "it works"...

No, NO, a thousand times NO! Because then we few, we band of brothers (and sisters), can still consider ourselves an elite, on a higher rung of the evolutionary ladder, compared to the braindead masses of Windows (I think that's how it's spelled) lusers.

I have yet to figure out how it the world Linux could get less free if it became more mainstream. We already have thousands (ok, that might be an exaggeration) of choices of which distro we want to use. The differences between them seem to come down to how much we want to tweak our systems. Joe 6pack Linux might be a lot like Windows, hide the CLI, and run as root as default. However, that does not mean that anybody with real knowledge will be forced to use it. It is impossible for Linux to become a closed system due to the GPL. The code is in the open, and it has to stay in the open. If 4 billion people started using Ubuntu tomorrow, Slackers would still be free to recompile everything on their systems once a week. However, those 4 billion people would be a great reason for all of the hardware manufacturers to write Linux drivers for the hardware they sell. It would also be a great reason for all of the software vendors to rewrite their code to run on Linux. And if something will run on one Linux version, it can be made to run on any.

2 more pennies on the pile,

Forrest

Best Buy now sells boxed sets of Ubuntu for $19.00 More will follow if the sales of Ubuntu are brisk.

I voted "no", but that's only because the option "I do not care" is missing.

The only reason why it would be nice if there was a larger userbase for linux is so more applications (read: games) would be become available. But then again, I use a windows box to play games. To me, linux is just another way of doing things. I am not religious about how I do other things, so why would this be any different?

It is not important that linux becomes mainstream. Rather, it is important that computer users are aware that there are more ways of doing things than only the microsoft way, or only the OSX way, or only the debian way...etc. Even better would be if users could embrace this diversity.

It depends on what one means by "mainstream". If it means to become popular, then it's something I wish for. The reason is not only because Linux is far superior than Windows or Mac, but that by making Linux popular the philosophy of open source software will prevail. And I do believe that it's a matter of time before this happens and the colossus of copyrighted, closed, expensive, buggy software has to changed its tactics in order to survive, bringing the downfall of copyright methods.

Obviously, if "mainstream" means becoming what Windows is today, then I'll turn to Solaris or something else... But that's not going to happen; even if the vast majority of computers use Linux, there will still be numerous choices of distributions and software.

I definitely have to agree with you on keeping it less like Windows and just the way it is: free and open to all to modify to their hearts content. And thankfully, you're right about that not happening due to the number of distributions and developers willing to keep it the way it is.

It depends on what is "mainstream".
1) If "making linux mainstream" means "makin it so easy so only newbies will be comfortable with that", then my answer is "no".
2) If "mainstream" means "making linux widespread without reducing learning cost, adding better hardware support for certain devices, and maybe porting 90% of commercial games", then answer is "yes".
3) If "mainstream" means both #1 and #2, then my answer is "no".

ErV
1) making it so easy only newbies are comfortable with it CANNOT HAPPEN. Nobody is going to go around and remove Slackware or Debian from our systems. Every different distro will not cease to exist. It just means that there will be some subset of Linux distros that are "so easy only newbies will be comfortable with it." The rest of us will use what WE are comfortable with.
2) That IS exactly what it would mean.
3) It can only mean 2. 1 cannot happen.

I guess you voted yes?

Forrest

I voted yes because when I know something is good, I want others to benefit from it too. Why would it have to "dumb down" the OS? I can sense some haughtiness here... Mainstreaming Linux would free the vast majority of computer users, who still suffer under the unreliability, cost, lock-in and constant maintenance - with attendant costs, especially to businesses - of Windows, and it would in return open up a wealth of opportunities to the Linux community. Let us not forget that mainstreaming Linux also means making Linux users mainstream. More people using more of the good stuff. I fail to understand why that would be a bad thing. When you believe in something, you want it to spread to your fellow man. Simple as that.

I'm really glad to hear that. }:->

I voted "no" because when talking about "mainstream" people often want to turn Linux into something Windows-like i.e. #1.

I don't think that would actually happen due to the nature of Linux and the fact that there are so many distros out there. I agree with forrestt about the way it will probably go.

I beg to disagree.

a) Dell, for example, sells Ubuntu computers. They even, if I'm not mistaken, have contributed bug fixes to the open-source programs used in Ubuntu. They may not make much money that way, but they are gaining a better reputation.

b) How many people are going to believe that Linux doesn't need anti-virus/spyware/etc. software? I think most consumers would buy those products anyway regardless of how few known Linux viruses exist.

c) No licensing fees. That means more profits for the vendors if they sell Linux for the same price as they would Windows.
-----
As for me, I hope Linux does become more mainstream. The only reason I still have Windows is because some of my games still don't work in Linux either natively or with Wine.

I agree if the mainstream means open for more users, but I disagree if it means close to only one distro or only be "User friendly" (in the easy way sence).

And for Dell, my regards because selling a preinstalled linux box, means that other linux distros will be installed on it.

Why in the world would making Linux more mainstream mean that current Linux distros would suddenly become crippled? I have Linux on my computer. So do most of you. Are you going to switch to "Joe 6pack Linux" if it means using something windowslike? I'm not, and I doubt any of you will. I doubt that ANY of the root distros would either (by root I mean the ones that other distros use to branch from). When I started in Linux about 13 years ago, there were only about 5 distros worth considering. Now where are so many that you need an accountant to keep track of them. Does anybody really think that ALL of these people will suddenly decide to switch their distros to something even remotely like Windows? Even if one did, I doubt they ALL would. And, even if they ALL did, we are free to start our own branches that don't. The code is already out there. It CANNOT go away. The very concept of it happening is ridiculous. When Apple took the BSD code and created OSX did FreeBSD cease to exist? It is more "windowslike" than FBSD, but that doesn't stop the FBSDers from seeing improvements in their systems. And their license doesn't require that changes be given back, so they don't even necessarily benefit from the hardware/software porting that Apple and other vendors have done. With Linux, any modifications to the code have to be given back to the community. We are then able to take from those code pieces the ones we like and leave the ones we don't. Linux going mainstream can ONLY benefit the community. Because we are not required to adopt all of the changes that a mainstream distro may make. But, they ARE required to tell us what they have changed and how, allowing us to rework anything we don't like.

I think I'm up to at least a dime by now,

Forrest