"Unlike the myths that are behind the prevention of Linux adoption, this piece will closely examine the indisputable obstacles and what will have to be done to overcome each of them. In the past, many desktop Linux users have opted to simply point to the hardware industry or Microsoft as the root cause of a lack of mainstream adoption. In reality, there are actually core issues extending beyond hardware - and competition from the proprietary markets - that simply must be dealt with head on. With that said, hardware compatibility and competition from closed-source vendors are valid issues, just not solid core excuses for the lack of mainstream interest. Here are the real hurdles."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-08-22
The Author didn't care how many distro's there is - he's mentioning consistency within the distro's themselves and specifically mentions how some working stuff breaks between releases of uBuntu - quoting scanners and wireless drivers, etc.
In other words, the distros need to make sure that existing things that work in one release continue to work in the next release. That is what he is criticizing there.
Member since:2005-10-11
Here is an example.
I installed gOS on my laptop.
I installed ubuntu desktop, and right before my eyes the current gOS desktop was corrupting itself. Then I noticed the login manager got corrupted.
Don't ask me why, because I didn't understand it.
Edited 2008-03-11 21:37 UTC
Member since:2007-06-24
I think that's the whole point of consistency. Ubuntu and Red Hat are very similar, but they're also very different. You can't configure things in the same places in both of them, even if to an average user they appear to be the same. If someone learns enough to fix a few of the problems they have in one, they may not be able to fix it in the other due to that specific configuration being different. Sure, it's easy for someone who may be very technical with Linux, but it's just not going to cut it for mainstream users.
You may disagree, but I think the only evidence one needs to look at is the numbers. You may say that over 14 years, the Linux usage rate has increased dramatically, but in reality you're still looking about a few percent total. If Linux were a bit more standardized and consistent, without hundreds of distributions and configurations, you'd see much higher adoption of the OS for desktop users, as well as anyone who has little experience with Linux in general.
Member since:2007-12-04
Well, if it keeps coming back after 14 years then it probably means that for some (many?) people that is indeed an issue. I believe that the diversity of the Linux distributions is more of an asset than a problem, but I wouldn't blame people for not being comfortable with it.
Edit: language
Edited 2008-03-12 09:08 UTC
Member since:2005-07-05
That's the point though. The argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. When you press the people who are claiming that choice is a problem, it always comes down to the fact that they are using the diversity of Linux distributions as an excuse for their not using it.
It seems people feel they have to have an excuse (or excuses) for not using Linux, which is just dumb. If you want to use it, learn it, if not, don't. Be proud of your choices.
In my opinion, Linux and BSD are the best operating systems out there. I'm happy with my opinion and it serves me well. I wish others could be equally happy about theirs.
Member since:2006-09-18
I'm not sure about how commercial Apps fit into the wider picture of Linux Distros.
Often a commercial developer will (eg. Latest version of Maya 2008) standardize their App on one or two different distros. It may work with others but the developer will not provide support if anything goes wrong.
I read about an expensive engineering pro modeling app that simply refused to work on anything but the Redhat Distro. It turns out that it fails to load some libraries on Ubuntu because they're compiled in a different version of gcc.
The Distro fragmentation means that even though commercial Apps are made for Linux they are not guaranteed to work on other Distros and if they do work your often left with resorting to forums where users provide the advice (eg. converting RPMs to Debian packet manager etc) to make it install. Some Apps don't like wine others don't like xgl, Compiz etc.
The average mainstream user just can't afford deal with this.
Member since:
2005-07-05
I have to disagree. So what if there are 100 different Linux distribution? Once you know one, you can be productive on nearly all of them. Also, who's stopping you from choosing Debian, or Ubuntu, or Red Hat and just sticking with it?
I don't know of any GPL clause that says you have to install a different flavor of Linux on every machine you own.
I've heard this complaint for almost 14 years now and I don't believe it stands up to scrutiny at all.