Linked by David Adams on Mon 24th Aug 2009 09:21 UTC
Linux A reader asks: Why is Linux still not as user friendly as the two other main OSes with all the people developing for Linux? Is it because it is mainly developed by geeks? My initial feeling when reading this question was that it was kind of a throwaway, kind of a slam in disguise as a genuine question. But the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I felt. There truly are a large amount of resources being dedicated to the development of Linux and its operating system halo (DEs, drivers, apps, etc). Some of these resources are from large companies (IBM, Red Hat, Novell). Why isn't Linux more user-friendly? Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?
Permalink for comment 380225
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Let's see
by neticspace on Mon 24th Aug 2009 10:28 UTC
Member since:

(Note: My post might anger some people. I apologize in advance.)

I had a similar intensive discussion with my computer tech buddy. We all agreed on one thing: operating systems with Unix or Unix-like architecture are more suitable for workstation/server and industrial embedded equipment applications than ordinary home desktop application.

Methinks the next user-friendly open source OSes will not have a Unix(-like) architecture. But Linux and BSD indeed have contributed many stuffs by enriching a firm foundation of open source movement and projects. That's for sure.

Linux and BSD are perhaps the indirect motivators of open sourcing more mainstream Unix systems or similar Unix-like ones in the future; enriching possibly brand new generation of Unix(-like)-inspired operating systems when new computer technologies will arrive.

I currently have a mixed feeling of today's open source home desktop because it's good that those projects grow firmly and steadily, but the fact that Linux or BSD are rather better for workstations/servers.

Edited 2009-08-24 10:32 UTC

Reply Score: 1