Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 22:07 UTC
Linux With Linux on the desktop going from a slow crawl to verging on an explosion, many have toiled with the question: How do we make this happen faster? A well-known Austin-based Linux Advocate thinks he has the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 297452
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Simple answer
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Simple answer"
Member since:

I don't think the FOSS community should start to use lock-in tactics just because everyone else does. We should do what we believe is right, instead of trying to achieve Pyrrhic victories.

I understand your point and thats mostly how FOSS project development operates today. It works well but not for the success of alternative platforms.

Perhaps Linux could only move forward in the respect to adoption if a new software development ideology were formed; an idea that focuses exclusively on innovation for FOSS platforms like Linux.

Edited 2008-01-23 23:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

jabbotts Member since:

The idea has struck me a few times and is the primary reason I use "Linux based OS" or a specific distribution name. Here's why:

Linux is only a single commodity part of a bigger thing. Linux is the kernel, the core OS itself and nothing more. We all agree that one requires the rest of the distribution on top of the kernel or it's of no use. The smallest distributions specifically designed for a phone or R/C radio even include the kernel plus something. That something may be only the slim program between the user's four buttons and the kernel wrapped hardware but it's more than Linux. It's like referring to all firearms as fireingpins; but different distributions of fireingpins. Or, referring too all cars as Hemmy's but different distributions of the core engine.

It may be something as simple as referring to specific distributions; the kernel plus user space programs. Linux seems to cause an overwhelming fear of choice. If it's "Linux" it must be that complicated thing of which there are hundreds of programs for each function. But, they are all different. They are all seporate distributions onto themselves even though they are assembled from the same parts. Why not refer to Ubuntu or Ubuntu Linux rather than Linux. I don't run Linux, I run Mandriva which happens to be a Linux based OS.

The answer is surely not to reduce the number of choices but maybe start to recognize that these distribution things are not all the same even though they happen to have a Linux kernel at there core.

Reply Parent Score: 1

hobgoblin Member since:

"linux based", i can live with that.
better then gnu/linux at least...
(sorry, i guess this can become inflamatory)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Simple answer
by dagw on Thu 24th Jan 2008 11:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Simple answer"
dagw Member since:

an idea that focuses exclusively on innovation for FOSS platforms like Linux.

In that case, you can count me out. One of the big selling points of FOSS for me is its ubiquity. The fact that it doesn't matter if the underlying OS is Linux, Irix, Solaris, Windows, FreeBSD or OS X. The tools I need to use will be there waiting for me, because those tools are Open Source. Lose that and it's back to vendor lock in, of a slightly different type.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Simple answer
by Moochman on Thu 24th Jan 2008 17:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Simple answer"
Moochman Member since:

Exactly. Plus, the "halo effect" of OSS should not be underestimated--the fact that users come to be familiar with and dependent on FOSS software means that they will be that more likely to be willing to switch to Linux in the future, because all of that same software they're used to runs there.

Reply Parent Score: 2