I use Linux daily, on my main workstation. The only time I'm in the Windows environment is via a virtual machine when I'm doing work on a customer's Windows based app. Even then I don't really need to be in Windows - I fire up the server vm (web & db), and then use samba to talk to the files I need so that I can stay in my Linux environment as much as possible. Doing raw database work needs me in Windows (SQL Server 2000), but that's rare.
As for the niche thing. Well, I think that's a non-argument. If you consider the niche thing to be a very specific type of desktop, that may be true. But that is being narrow minded. Linux runs desktops, server, cell phones, refrigerators, GPS systems, security systems, televisions, and much much more. Yep, that's a "niche" market alright (sarcasm off now). Windows is taking the approach "we will provide what you need for your desktop". But the other message in there is "we will decide what you need for your desktop". Linux takes the approach "what do you want in your desktop". And the other message in there is "what do you want in your desktop". In other words, if your Linux desktop doesn't do what you want it's probably because you haven't set it up right. Windows fans will tell me that their OS will do what they want out of the box. I claim bullshit on that. Watch a video - oops, you need to install codecs, and get "permission" via the DRM bits to do so via Windows Media. Write a document - oops, you need to buy MS Office and install it first. Send email - oops you need to configure the mail client first, or install a better one. To make a decent desktop means to spend some time making it do what you want - regardless of platform. If there is anything "niche" about Linux, it's in the marketing and PR department. Linux users don't throw their money away trying to convince them that the latest coat of paint is soooo much better than the last coat of paint. That money (and time/effort) goes into making the product better. But the core issue with this argument is that Linux NEEDS to compete with Windows. I submit that Linux users just don't care how Linux compares to Windows. If Linux meets your needs, great. If not, that's fine too. I use Linux because I can. Because I can afford it. Because I can change it. Because I can audit the code. Because I can do my work on it. I really don't care if Linux "competes" with Windows. I care about getting my tasks done. My thoughts. Shawn Doug Boyd wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
