With open source programming becoming more popular, why has it taken so long for Linux to really take off. I would have thought Linux would be a very popular desktop os by now. What is holding it back from becoming an os power?
windows still rules in the desktop environment coz of its user friendly nature. Lot of people find even windows difficult to operate on. Linux they think is out of this world, only for geeks..windows comes bundled with most of the PCs or laptops u order..linux doesnt..i work a lot in linux at work but wouldnt want to work on linux at home..windows does a good job at home..in my opinion..
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution -- Robert Sewell
Linux is hard to use. I tried hard to become comfortable with Linux but in vain. That is when I concluded that the best OS is the one on which you can be most productive
For Linux to rule the world, they have to make an entry into the corporate desktop world. Microsoft has such strong partnerships with every single big company in the world that it would be impossible for Linux to make a dent.
Can you imagine employees who have worked on Windows for loads of years waking up one day to find their OS is different? This would dramatically reduce productivity! Imagine the costs the companies would incur in training the employees on the new OS. Doesn't sound practical to me.
Originally posted by Amit Saini: For Linux to rule the world, they have to make an entry into the corporate desktop world.
This is a huge factor. Now that computers have become extremely common, the average computer user is not as comfortable with computers as the average user a decade ago. This means that most home computer users will only have computer skills they have picked up in the office. For them the unfamiliarity of Linux would make it unpopular.
The other big factor is the lack of compatibility. Most users want to be able to use their computer to do some web-related activities, load a Word document, and load a computer game they have just purchased. The first is fine and (mostly) platform independent, but the other two are different. Until someone can come up with a version of Linux which can easily run Windows-compatible software and is easy to set up/install, Windows will rule the roost.
There may well be ways of getting around the compatibility issue, but they are complicated to set up. Most Windows users are used to being able to get their new computer out of the box and be playing a game on it within half an hour. Give them a Linux disc and point them to a few websites for complex installation instructions and they'll be lost.
I wonder if some programmers who contribute to the *nix versions out there really want it to be common and easy to use. At the moment there is a large geek-factor associated with these O/Ss. Those that use them can think of themselves as better and more elite then the common Windows users. If Linux became easy enough for the common user to use then the geeks would no longer be able to think of themselves as advanced.
There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman. - Tony Banks
You mean to say those 'elite' geeks don't really want Linux to become popular? Regards Dharam(Drinking hot tea with biscuits while solving people's problems)
Powered by Sonia
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Originally posted by Dharam Singh: You mean to say those 'elite' geeks don't really want Linux to become popular?
Maybe. If the average user could use Linux as easily as Windows, then Linux geeks wouldn't be able to feel superior any more. They'd loose their identity, and one of their reasons for feeling above the above the hoards of uneducated average users. What would they have left to moan about while gathering for a pizza or posting on Slashdot?
You realize that this sort of discussion more properly fits in the Meaningless Drivel forum don't you?
However, I'll drivel a little about my job just to place things morew on-topic.
We don't expect to see Linux on desktops around here anytime soon, although since an awful lot of our employees are working call center desks, I could make a very strong case for developing a stripped-down system containing essentially nothing more than a web browser for most of them (most everything they do is web-based, and I just happen to know where to get an IBM 3270 emulator webapp for the rest). However, as long as (desktop-vendor-of-choice) bundles in Windows for "free", I don't see it happening.
Linux, like Java, has been far more successful in the business world in the server room. We are ramping up Linux in the datacenter, since presently all our "heavy lifting" is done by Sun/Solaris and we're eager to take advantage of the lower costs involved in running Linux/Intel, where reasonable.
The bulk of our production systems are in Java, so we don't care whether we're running Solaris, Linux or Windows. A few apps can only run under Windows, but we try and discourage ecessive use of Windows as a production platform.
An IDE is no substitute for an Intelligent Developer.
For home users linux is not a very attractive OS because you can't play your favorite games in it and its a lot more complicated to use.
for corporate users linux is not a good idea for desktops because you don't have propet tools to manage your desktops (ensure their anti-virus and applications are patched and uniform). Linux also needs a trained professional that's usually more expensive than a windows professional (because of the complexity and the rarity of the needed traning).
Usually I try full open source solutions for my desktop twice a year... last time I adopted OpenOffice as my mais office suite and thunderbird + firefox as email and web programs, bux linux is not mature enought. Bugs and unnecessary complexities drove me back to Windows.
Next month I will try it again with fedora Core 4, lets see if something changed!!!
With open source programming becoming more popular, why has it taken so long for Linux to really take off. I would have thought Linux would be a very popular desktop os by now. What is holding it back from becoming an os power? Does anyone have any idea? :roll:
IMHO, Linux is an excellent server considering technics but a poor client considering use friendliness.
In fact Linux as a server is not disadvantaged at all against Windows as for many tricky issues without corresponding management GUI you have to hack base register in unfriendly graphical mode, as system config files for Linux. But as a client, for a "basic" user who sees nothing of system internals, Windows GUI will rule.
The only real weakness for Linux to rule on anyone's desktop is a generalized reliable and really user friendly installation feature as a client, like RedHat's one.
And about Java, its main interest is to run on any platform, but as almost all platforms are Windows this feature is practically useless.
But I like it that you see Linux AND Java as fighting tools against Windows monopoly, for it is one of their great aspects (I have nothing against $Soft, I simply hate monopolies).
Originally posted by Eric Lemaitre: And about Java, its main interest is to run on any platform, but as almost all platforms are Windows this feature is practically useless.
For server-side Java, I would suggest that this portability is taken advantage of more than one might realize. A lot of larger sites will run their servers on Unix or Linux, but the development is almost exclusively using Windows boxes. Having a binary package that can be deployed without recompliation onto a server with a totally different OS (and perhaps CPU architecture) is an important feature.
Of my past four jobs, three have using Linux, AIX or OS400 as their production OS, not Windows. I do the same thing with my own site; it's developed using Windows but runs on Linux, and before that FreeBSD.