Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Jul 2012 12:41 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 528575
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
maybe if your idea of success is market share
It is pretty universally accepted idea... plus it brings tons of network effects, feedback loops - making a given OS clearly better than most of its past (and dead) contenders; even if initially it wasn't necessarily so.
If I want a lighter and faster desktop I can choose openbox, dwm, or another window manger. If I want something more feature packed and heavier I can choose xfce, gnome, or KDE. Easy to change at bootup depending on what I want at that time. To me, that is the real strength of Linux and other open OS's - freedom of choice.
And if I want a lighter and faster desktop on Windows I can choose bbLean or LDE(X). If something more fancied out, Emerge or Litestep. Easy to change even after bootup ...you just run a shell you want.
Also, freedom of software choices (Linux software is typically available for Windows, but that's rarer the other way around).
But the point is, it presents widely adopted defaults, which are also quite decent.




Member since:
2008-03-25
maybe if your idea of success is market share. However, the reason I prefer using Linux over osx and windows is that I can choose my desktop gui. If I want a lighter and faster desktop I can choose openbox, dwm, or another window manger. If I want something more feature packed and heavier I can choose xfce, gnome, or KDE. Easy to change at bootup depending on what I want at that time. To me, that is the real strength of Linux and other open OS's - freedom of choice. I think locking into a desktop gui and not allowing the easy change to another would hurt not help GNU/Linux.