Linus Torvalds still wants Linux to take over the desktop
Quote:
--jeremy |
Quote:
I do not get the continuing references to Linux not being a success on the desktop - it certainly is! There always seems to be a good bit of word mangling and obfuscation of terms required to explain just what someone means by "failure on the desktop", and it always ends with someone else's marketing data... Every single such article I have seen in the past 20+ years, I have seen on my GNU/Linux desktop (or laptop) computer! So tell me again, how long has GNU/Linux failed to succeed on the desktop!? |
Quote:
--jeremy |
Quote:
For example, if we take desktop to refer to a category of hardware and packaging, then it would include many things not strictly called PCs. Or if we take it to mean the use case it would include many devices not strictly called desktop computers, including the laptop on which I am typing (which is my main desktop machine). And it would seem that mainstream adoption is itself, a similarly ambiguous term when you try to pin it down. Continuing the desktop adoption discussion only becomes increasingly confusing and pointless for all under these circumstances. It seems to me that it would be more helpful to make a distinction by user/use along the lines of *naive users/uses and *non-naive users/uses of hardware in some category called desktop. I am sure that would also lead to more rounds of word wrangling, but I think it would lead in a more useful direction. The reason I think so is that it would ultimately differentiate between the otherwise *computing-oblivious electronics purchaser and the computer purchaser/user with an *intelligence-based purpose for the hardware. I think it is important to start making such distinctions as well, because both can be included under the term "mainstream desktop users", but catering to one can be overtly harmful to the other! In fact, I think that the whole mainstream desktop adoption discussion is pretty pointless without such a distinction among users/uses. So a good place to begin making that distinction would be in discussions of mainstream desktop adoption. Thanks for sharing the thoughts! * - The terms I have selected for use here will probably seem elitist to some, but that is not the intent. I have used them as I think they are the most applicable to the idea I have expressed. |
Hi. GNU/Linux have a lot of advantages. But people thinks it is only a hacker operative system. We use GNU/Linux from year 2000. I am not a programmer or IT profesional. But people can confuse with advanced 'languaje' and think it is too many complex.
In the last years GNU/Linux advance a lot, but yet have some problems with hardware factories about drivers and licences. And this is the first problem. When people will use GNU/Linux in his home, it will be a great succes, because an old PC can run latest GNU/Linux version and cannot do with MS windows (some years ago i can run the latest Debian on a PC which can not run MS Windows XP). And can run programas like StarOffice (LibreOffice) quickly in the same PCs who run very slow MS Office. But the problem is people think GNU/Linux is complex and only for advanced users. It is wrong. But peopel repeat it, and finally believe it. Have a nice and great day. |
I thought Linus was quite clear that he meant mainstream desktop adoption was the goal:
Quote:
It's fairly common for posters to type things like "... is why Linux will never be a mainstream OS ..." and with Linus posting things like this then, perhaps, they're the ones we ought to be listening to? I would always think that most people in the open source world would hope that people would want to learn about the software and adapt rather than just have things given to them on a plate, but if Linus does want to take over the desktop space then who knows? |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 AM. |