OSNews

Now to address the previous article, the author puts a tremendous amount of emphasis on the desktop, on WYSIWYG design (which really has nothing to do with the GUI but let’s bear with him). Now I would argue that the command line is usually far superior to using a GUI, as it allows you to work much faster and more flexibly. But for trivial tasks such as checking your mail or browsing the web, it’s often more convenient to have a GUI available. But think biology and evolution. A GUI is the natural result of a need to check mail. GUI’s are not Microsoft-invented concepts as the previous author implies; indeed many attribute the first GUI to Apple.

The previous author goes on to say that a GUI (or what he calls a WYSIWYG desktop) and the Unix way of accomplishing tasks on the command line are mutually exclusive. Next he mentions OSX, which is a GUI on top of a Unix system. I believe by what philosophers call a reductio ad absurdum, he’s just invalidated his own statement. But disregarding that, putting a simpler façade on top of a more complicated interior is commonplace. Think about your TV. Many remotes have a little slider that hides a set of fancy buttons. Now think about something like an IDE. It automates most tasks but lets you screw with the inner workings when you want to. So why shouldn’t we extend this metaphor to a whole system? We should, and we do.

The fair race

Now the author seems to think that Linux is simply copying Microsoft on everything. That’s not true. What Linux aims to implement on the desktop is simply the end of a rational series of progressions. Let's say you have an error. How would you handle it? Now about telling the user and asking them what they want to do? Great. How do we do it? Dialog box! Great idea! That's the human thought process. Drop a computer in the Garden of Eden during man’s golden age and Adam would’ve come to the same conclusion.

If the previous author had any further point in this section, it would be that Linux's difficulty today is providing a Microsoft-like GUI on top of its traditional Unix-like system. What he really means to say is that Linux’s trouble is providing an efficient single-user experience on a system designed with a multi-user server-client model. I concede; this is why it’s taken so long for things such as Upstart to emerge. But simultaneously argue that this does not mean the Linux model is a failing system. Instead, it needs to update its traditional thinking, and this is absolutely beneficial to the community in general. However, the author seems to think that this would also incur a complication overhead due to more abstraction; this is simply not the case. Take a look at any of the new Sysvinit replacements; they’re all easier to use than the original.

Predictions

I’m not even going to address this section. I’m just going to point out that this author thinks ReactOS will replace Linux and leave it for readers to draw their own conclusions. (Don’t get me wrong. I fully support the ReactOS project, but honestly...).

Conclusion

Anyways, my whole point in writing this article was to refute the previous author’s work. Linux is progressing strongly and is not going away in either mine nor your lifetimes.

---

If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.

Table of contents

1. "Linux war, Page 1/2"
2. "Linux war, Page 2/2"