I cannot find a reasonably "official" place at which to discuss the Simple End-User Linux project, so I've come here. Part of my interest for this post is to get a link to an "official" SEUL forum (if one exists) from a knowledgeable user.

I was previously unaware of the SEUL project but sought it out after I thought of the potential Linux has for infringing upon Microsoft's consumer market share, and I was convinced such an effort must be common sense to others as well. After browsing its site, seul.org, I found that little information was provided about its core material as a mainstream Linux OS and my curiosity remained unsatisfied.

Does anyone here have any suggestions about where to go to discuss SEUL or find out more detailed information regarding its progress, development, release, etcetera? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Well, you can discuss it here, as you are right now, or you can contact the seul people themselves: seul@seul.org

Until I learn of a more productive place to discuss SEUL, I guess I will just continue here. I also have yet to hear back from the SEUL people. By the way, Siu, I read your "Linux is ready for the desktop--but whose desktop?" essay - found it interesting. Can you tell me why Linux cannot play most PC games or run most PC applications? I know that AutoCAD can't be run on Linux period due to Windows-specific "calls" Linux simply cannot get around. This seems like a major advantage Windows has. Is there any prospect of this being overcome through some consistently reliable automated process in Linux, alike to automatic hardware detection?

I'll be perfectly honest: I don't have much interest in gaming. I play a little electronic board game called Gnocatan, but that's the extent of my game-playing. You may find this thread from the Ubuntu Forums an interesting read, though:

So why don't developers make games for Linux?

I read the Ubuntu forum discussion you posted, so this post is going to be long. Just so you know, I don't play any PC games; I'm only asking to try to get a grasp on Linux's faults - ones that must be overcome for it to be a powerful force in the consumer market. At the beginning of it all, I didn't mind Microsoft. Now I want harm to come to it and I know Linux is the best means to that end. So, perhaps my philosophical approach to Linux is less altruistic than it is malicious. I'm all for free/cheap software for people, but as far as my priorities go, that's more of a byproduct of achieving increasing and irreparable damage to Microsoft's market share. There's a lack of that commercial initiative with Linux, unlike with Microsoft. I'm perceiving a need for more of that ferociousness that comes with the greed of commercial interest in order for Linux to really get off the ground in the mainstream. Although, this ravenous aggression would derive instead from malice towards MS and the desire to spread the good of free/cheap software.

So, it seems that the problem of application compatibility lies with a lack of uniformity, yes? There is no definitive mainstream Linux and so developers rarely bother with making software for the slightly more popular one? Is the Linux market too diluted with a bunch of incompatible distros?

As for the whole "FSF Nazis" thing, am I to understand that game developers must make their source code open if they are to port it to Linux? If that's the case, I don't see why they should. For Linux to be a force, it needs to make it as easy on software developers as possible. "Why won't you open your source code for Linux huh? Don't got the balls?" Of course it's economic interest, but for the sake of the greater good - a mainstream Linux taking on Windows - these ideals should be set aside. Profit-centric companies should be drawn to Linux for Linux's sake, not run off. Attitudes to the contrary are counter-productive.

A baser question I have about Linux on a code level is, why do these games or applications need to be ported at all? Why can't the same copy of Doom 3 work on Linux just as well as on Windows? The file structure is different, so how difficult would it be for a version of Linux to be reworked so as to be ordered like Windows' structure, thereby bypassing the compatibility issue? Of course, then Microsoft could just release a completely restructured version of Windows so as to trump Linux's compatibility. This mainstream Linux organization would then have to do the same to maintain its threat level.

A potential drawback to the open source "free-for-all" situation as opposed to the totalitarian, top-down corporate structure is speed of unified action. If MS wants to do something, it's done. Top-down. No argument. The last thing Linux needs for an end-all mainstream Linux to be successful is trivial disagreements that slow progress. Widespread open source community support for a SINGLE definitive Linux to directly compete with Windows is vital. Cooperation from all available distros should be a top priority. A game-focused distro should instead become part of the mother project of the mainstream Linux. Inclusion of programs like Open Office and Firefox should be standard.

I believe this mainstream Linux shouldn't be for Linux fans. It needs to be dumbed down with most of the options made for the user. It must be flashy, with snazzy icons, shiny buttons, pretty skins, image-minded aesthetics, professionally photographed landscapes (for backgrounds), marketing-conscious names, all that. Is that pandering? Yes. But that's what people want, I'm thoroughly convinced.

This is what I want for Linux. But for it to happen, major inter-community networking is required. It should be able to pull the best aspects from all distros and the organizers of any similar projects should act to combine their efforts into one collective mainstream version of Linux. I hope it is doable.

What I want right now is to boil down the core obstacles in the way of making this Linux a reality.

http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux.php

But it sounds as if you should start advertising for and financially supporting Linspire--that's your distro. You can read more about Linspire here.

"Every now and then, someone on a Linux forum will suggest that--in order to make inroads into the desktop market--Linux should make a unified distribution." Well, I did suggest that Linux should make inroads into the desktop market, though, for clarity's sake, I should say that my desire isn't necessarily for a new distro at all, nor am I proposing in any way the homogenization, reduction, or centralization of the distro pool. I just want to know the main obstacles in the way of a single version of Linux doing as much damage to Microsoft's OS consumer market share as possible. Why one version? Well, my thinking is that marketing one product and getting it into the minds of the consumer is probably easier than doing that twice over with some other competing version. If the ultimate objective could be achieved with more than one version, cool, but it just seems like it would be more difficult and so a single version seems like the better option.

Under no circumstances would I want the open source volleying of Linux mods to stop. By all means, that should continue. This mainstream Linux would just be off doing its own thing, which would be something many community members would likely consider "pandering to the masses."

In regards to Linux's obstacles as a mainstream OS, compatibility, obviously, is a probably the biggest one. So, I wonder aloud why, on a technical level, this incompatibility exists and what can be done to transcend the problem. How would Linux have to be restructured in order to run all Windows programs without relying on (or so heavily on) an emulator?

Another obstacle is the open source community not recognizing or being inclined to recognize any one project or distro as the definitive one to tackle the task of creating a truly mainstream, Windows-threatening Linux. Maybe I'm dead wrong, but the attitude seems to be such that any attempt to establish one team/project/distro as the authority for the mainstream Linux would be viewed as pretentious or unnecessary. "Why should they be the authority on this? What makes them so special and why should I treat them as such?" Or "There's no need to cooperate with them, I'll go ahead and work on this by myself."

A big reason why a single version would do better than multiple ones, I think, is that all the efforts to make a better desktop Linux would be channeled to THE one mainstream Linux project. That would compound the progress, otherwise be spread out over multiple versions, into a single product. This would best achieve the kind of Linux I'm thinking of... if only it were a shared community priority.

Linspire sounds close, though they gave up their compatibility aims. The images I've seen of their GUI is spot on: flashy, shiny, and image-conscious. I'll be looking more into it, however, I should note that my interest in a pretty GUI isn't for myself but for the advancing the front against Microsoft since that's what the average Joe will see.

Given the recent spat between Google and MS, I wonder if Google would feel compelled to help market Linspire in an effort to damage Microsoft. Perhaps (and this would probably be despised by the Linux community), this marketing cooperation could be paid for in part by pre-installed Google programs on Linspire, so Google would feel more compelled to help market it. In order for major manufacturers to pre-load Linux on their systems, it must first be truly mainstream.

Thanks for the links.

Here's another link for you:

http://www.linuxbase.org/

Your ideas are not revolutionary or new. I don't mean this in an insulting way--I'm merely stating fact. I would suggest that you join on to an existing project, email it, and ask the project's maintainers how best you can help to do... whatever you want to do. These forums (or any Linux forums) are just for users helping other users out. No one here has any power to change the development strategies of everyone who uses the Linux kernel.

The extremity of the degree to which I'm aware that these ideas are not revolutionary or new is, frankly, unprecedented. I'd need to create new characters to properly express it, to be perfectly honest. As for your suggestion, I will continue to look for the appropriate outlet for my interests, LSB among those prospects.

In order to determine the best course of action for myself in regards to Linux, I must first have a thorough understanding of the circumstances surrounding Linux and in what directions it's able to go, which is something I don't have yet. All I want to do is get an idea on how Linux can best damage Microsoft's market share. I know many would consider that a juvenile goal, but I certainly wouldn't agree with those people.

I'd rather be blunt. I think Microsoft sucks. I don't like'em. I wanna see'em hurt. I wanna see Linux kick its ass and I wanna know what needs to happen before it does. I'm not calling for or expecting a paradigm shift in community-wide development strategies here, just expressing myself. I have no delusions about that. Well, it looks like the conversational brick wall has be hit. So, off I go (to more productive territory). Later.