Linked by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff on Tue 5th Dec 2006 18:30 UTC
The title of the article seems completely wrong to you? Naturally it would, when you daily read something like this. But I do state all this stuff is being a big mistake, if not worse. I am sure, that Linux is now close to extinction, and still is getting closer and closer to the point of no return.
Thread beginning with comment 188490
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-03-12
@notparker you've done this once already in the Vista is pretty so its great article.
I'm a little confused by the article. I think it is saying as its linux roots gets watered down, and it becomes a windows clone the *nix faithful will move to a more unix environment. As an aside it says Mac Os X is a screen scraper so can run on anything.
I find the the article surprising when I thought the two *newsworthy* points of Linux *death* is.
1) Fragmentation of interfaces when the kernel is used and nothing else.
2) Interaction with the Web and the web based OS.
What is true is that Hardcore users of Unix will always be attracted to a baremetal approach to an OS, and certainly some will look for a more *nix in there OS.
The reality is though that Linux is a definition is not windows. Windows is evolving to becoming a one vendor end to end solution. The trouble is, is that the definition of Linux is wrong in the article. GNU/Linux is a better term as it describes the kernel and the modular tools and applications that run on top. That can literally come from anywhere.
If you replace the kernel and use a variation of the tools, you may well be able to say proudly this is more *nix.
Where it all goes wrong is that Microsoft is the only company on the planet large enough to provide an end-to-end solution. Apple chose BSD because it was simply too time-consuming and costly to create there own solutions, look at a list of installed *BSD applications any linux user will be familiar with most of them. In reality windows users who have strayed enough from the Microsoft fold will be familiar with packages like OpenOffice and Firefox. If Hurd was finished tomorrow how many would care.
All in all I would argue that this is the age of the distribution for anything but Microsoft, whether the kernel is removed of has an alternative windows manager, the changes are becoming marginal.
If anyone want more *nix in their Linux another distribution will come along for them.
That said the article clearly ignores several things.
1) Graphical interfaces are not new ;X is really old
2) People mix there environment as best suits them, or the job that they do.
3) CLI environment is still important; even for Microsoft.
4) Graphical applications are often built the *Linux way*...modular i.e. K3B built using 10 CLI commands; Windows mangers with pick and choose components; replacement 2D with 3D windows managers.
5) *BSD Linux Solaris has and always will be about first and formost licenses.
6) That change; automation; ease of use is not always bad, and the flexibility and *choice* in linux means that the superior solution will often win out.
Now there is a change in the linux world happening, but its more to do with licenses than it has to do with any old *nix environment. I do see a split between those who accept propriatry software to fulfill there immediate needs, and those who think compromise is not worth it at any price, and licensing is going to make these software environments difficult to mix. So I would be prepared to argue that linux as we know it is Dead.