I agree it's probably not that well written an article. The part that caught my attention was that linux wants to be "a niche operating system that has a following and harbors little appeal to more than 98 percent of the world's computer users."
I've watched linux grow over the years, but my experience is that it's primarily making headway as a server replacement for non-prod work. Sure there are examples out there that have gone open-source, but they aren't the norm. I'm a little disappointed that linux hasn't made better headway over the years as a viable replacement for windows. Just out of curiousity does anyone work in a primarily opensource environment here in Calgary? Actually using linux as their only workstation at work? I'm not trying to bash linux. I think it is a great solution, but I'm willing to put the effort in to make it work because I support the ideal. Most people are inherently lazy and I disagree with Bogi in that most people don't want to learn something new. Most people are only willing to learn more about what they already know because it validates their initial investment of effort. Granted this is my personal experience, but I see lots of examples where people aren't happy to try the next version of outlook or (shudder) vista because it makes them uncomfortable. (vista isn't a great example here, because it _is_ frought with problems) So when I read this article I thought, maybe that's it, maybe linux just wants to be a niche O/S. And I just think it's better than that. I think there needs to be a change for it to become really popular. What change, I really don't know. The opensource model is an experiment that has been surprisingly successful. Does the process need to evolve for it to become the primary desktop of choice? I think so, and I look forward to some changes. My two cents and probably not worth much more than that. :) Cheers, Doug Shawn wrote: > Some interesting ideas in there. But overall I find it's just another > propaganda mouthpiece article bashing Linux and Open source in general. > It's kinda subtle but really, the article doesn't have anything useful > for me other than complaining the some of Linus's comments don't seem to > add up. But, If you were to put those comments into the context they > were originally expressed, rather than forcing them into the context of > the premise of this article, they would problem make more sense. > > As for who speaks for "Linux", well there's only one opinion that > matters to me regarding what Linux is or should be. Mine. If it does > the job for me and meets my criteria, I don't really care what Linus, > BillyG, or anyone else thinks about it. It's nice that there are a good > number of folks out there who happen to have similar needs to my own > though.. :) > > My thoughts. > > Shawn _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
