Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2012 22:52 UTC
Linux Miguel de Icaza: "To sum up: (a) First dimension: things change too quickly, breaking both open source and proprietary software alike; (b) incompatibility across Linux distributions. This killed the ecosystem for third party developers trying to target Linux on the desktop. You would try once, do your best effort to support the 'top' distro or if you were feeling generous 'the top three' distros. Only to find out that your software no longer worked six months later. Supporting Linux on the desktop became a burden for independent developers." Mac OS X came along to scoop up the Linux defectors.
Thread beginning with comment 533142
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 30th Aug 2012 06:33 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

Just a few comments..

First, stop going on about how the Linux desktop isn't dead because "you" are using it to post how it isn't dead. It was neither said nor implied that the Linux desktop vanished or doesn't exist. The piece is about how it's never become a real success. Stop being drama queens about it.

Next, too much choice often IS bad for users because they feel overwhelmed and lack the knowledge to make a good decision. Couple that with the fact that many users don't actually know what they need or want and all that choice is even worse. It's no surprise that some of the most popular Linux distros are the ones that try really hard to be like Windows.

Also, arguing that Linux doesn't have compatibility and breakage problems is like trying to argue the Earth is flat. Everybody knows it's bullshit and they've known it for a long time. That being said, yes, in some use cases it can be very stable. Don't get too excited however, the same can be said for the competition.

Linux can be a great choice depending on what you need out of your OS, software, and hardware. BUT, it can also be a horrible choice as well. Anyone who doesn't understand that or is unwilling to admit it has their head in the clouds. Linux suffers from a whole myriad of problems that can easily make it a poor choice for Joe Average.

Lastly, OS worshiping/bible-thumping is moronic. The more "you" do it, the more of an idiot you make yourself out to be. There is no "best", only what works best _for you_.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by dsmogor on Thu 30th Aug 2012 11:23 in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

The choice would be great if the pieces would actually be interchangeable. But the problem is they don't so the user is either presented with box of bricks that don't exactly fit together (aren't created to do that) with a non-trivial task of assembling them to make something functional (lots of hand made glue needed) or can get a someone else's puzzle with obvious all or nothing approach. While there's a lot of such puzzles none of those set aligns with 100% of given user needs. In other oses (of pre IPad era) , while the set of bricks one selects is definitely smaller ("less choice") they can actually be easile mixed and matched to generate far greater number of combinations that number of Linux distros.

Edited 2012-08-30 11:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Gullible Jones on Thu 30th Aug 2012 17:11 in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Thank you, that pretty much sums up my feelings.

Re too much choice, I do think it's worth mentioning that Windows offers a lot of choice for more experienced users - not just in terms of vast numbers of Windows applications, but also modifying the desktop's behavior (e.g. with TweakUI) or even replacing it wholesale (e.g. Litestep).

The difference with Windows isn't lack of choice, it's that Windows ships with a standardized (and quite sane) default setup. Choices do exist, but diving into them is not necessary for end users.

Reply Parent Score: 2