What Killed the Linux Desktop (by GNOME founder Miguel de Icaza)


Recommended Posts

Web servers? I didn't realise facebook, google, twitter, etc are only web servers.

Oh wait, they aren't.

'So obviously NX is the best server for everything and you didn't at all fail to understand the point of my post... :rolleyes:'

'I've got a server 03 VM and it's my main server that I do most things on, it's suited for it's job'

Are you being stupid on purpose?

And my maturity level? Haha, right, ok good luck with life.

To say that Linux is a better server than Windows is a valid argument, but to ignore the politics and finances companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter face when they choose their infrastructure is a mistake. The fact that they use Linux doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best technological choice for them.

Google using Microsoft servers would be like Toyota using engines from Honda, as they're both competitors in several markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google using Microsoft servers would be like Toyota using engines from Honda, as they're both competitors in several markets.

Rover used to use a mix of rover and honda engines.

Some other cars used other engines.

Depends what suited at the time and market conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rover used to use a mix of rover and honda engines.

Some other cars used other engines.

Depends what suited at the time and market conditions.

So you're saying that Google and Microsoft could enter into a technology sharing partnership like Honda and Land Rover? That ignores the overlapping markets of Land Rover and Honda versus the overlapping markets of Google and Microsoft. Where Honda and Land Rover could augment each other's offerings, Google and Microsoft would be cannibalizing each other.

Notice I said Toyota and Honda for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's "killing" the Linux desktop, is the number of choices one has, many claiming to be the "best" for newbies. It's a chaos trying out different distros & determining "which is right for me?". With over 100 to choose from, those with little time just doesn't have the time to explore.

But one thing is a fact, & Ubuntu did this to themselves with Gnome3, Linux Mint is the most popular distro, & it's the one that I've ran since "Gloria" in 2009. It is built around Ubuntu, but has extra code, & alternatives other than the main OS, Linux Mint 13. There are distros for older computers where a full Mint 13 install wouldn't run nor look good, yet still very functional, powerful & secure.

Speaking of security, there's a common misconception that it's not possible for the Linux OS to be infected with viruses or malware. This is false and potentially dangerous thinking. I've noticed that even during the install process, this is listed as a "feature", don't fall for it. There are security choices for Linux users, free & paid. They should be used, just as on Windows, a daily scan takes only a couple of minutes. What the deal is, unless the user is logged in as root, the core of the OS itself cannot get infected, but the browser certainly can, & pass it on to others, even Windows computers.

But I feel that Linux can grab more of a user share, by getting rid of all of the copycat versions. Many of which is a main version, with customized skins & a few, if any added usable features. One thing about the Linux community, there is no lack of support, there is plenty of self help for those who wants to learn Linux. Yes, there is a learning curve, but so is Windows 8. Linux OS's are far more user friendlier than ever (most are), if one can run Firefox, Opera or Chrome, he/she is on their way to learning the Linux distro of their choosing.

I have a feeling that some of the knocking around of Linux is from those who haven't really tried it, or gave up because they were out of their comfort zone. There is a lot of unlocked potential of many Linux distros, & if Windows 8 RP doesn't get their act together (BSOD's, having to reinstall often & driver incompatibilities), I very well may make Mint 13 my main OS of choice. I would much rather make a donation to a distro that runs well on my computers than to worry with what will & won't work on the next version of Windows.

The Linux Desktop is NOT Dead, by a long shot.

Cat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's "killing" the Linux desktop, is the number of choices one has, many claiming to be the "best" for newbies. It's a chaos trying out different distros & determining "which is right for me?". With over 100 to choose from, those with little time just doesn't have the time to explore.

That is absolutely one of the most confusing aspects for anyone wanting to get a foot in the door with Linux. But, the room for customization and the ability to have something new or different if you don't like your distro is also one of Linux's greatest advantages.

As with anything, especially Linux related, you just need to do a little research.

DistroWatch is a good place to start.

http://distrowatch.com/

I have a feeling that some of the knocking around of Linux is from those who haven't really tried it, or gave up because they were out of their comfort zone.

Dissent from bandwagoners who haven't really tried it is common, but out of their comfort zone? If it's within your comfort zone to install Linux in the first place you're far, far ahead of most computer users. A lot of people have trouble installing and configuring programs on Windows when it's simply point and click through a wizard, let alone asking them to run make or find and edit a config file. Even when those are within someone's comfort zone, they become tedious and time consuming, and that's when things are working as they're supposed to.

Is it really a case of too many users being out of their comfort zone, or the case that simple tasks are overly complicated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For newbie's, Ubuntu or Mint or Mageia is the place to start. A lot of the other distros are for more advanced users. I've seen some people recommend Arch for newcomers, I would never do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linux killed Linux on the desktop. Too many distros, too many forks, too many people pulling it in different directions, too much confusion. Until these problems are fixed, Linux will remain a play thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For newbie's, Ubuntu or Mint or Mageia is the place to start. A lot of the other distros are for more advanced users. I've seen some people recommend Arch for newcomers, I would never do that.

Mint is killing itself the same way Linux as a whole is killing itself. How many versions of Mint are there now ? Regular Ubuntu based, Debian based, 4 or 5 different desktop environment variants...

Yeah go tell someone wpwith enough techn knowledge to download and install mint to go download it and he'll be frustrated and turn away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For whatever reason the Linux Desktop crowd thought they would be taken seriously once they turned pretty much every distribution into a cheap OS X knock-off. Unsurprisingly that didn't work either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For whatever reason the Linux Desktop crowd thought they would be taken seriously once they turned pretty much every distribution into a cheap OS X knock-off. Unsurprisingly that didn't work either.

Unity has those global menus, but what have Gnome Shell or KDE have in common with OSX?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For whatever reason the Linux Desktop crowd thought they would be taken seriously once they turned pretty much every distribution into a cheap OS X knock-off. Unsurprisingly that didn't work either.

lol! Sometimes you just have to laugh when reading your posts, because really, you have no f'n clue half the time about the things which you babble on about! Poor you :D !

Unity has those global menus, but what have Gnome Shell or KDE have in common with OSX?

ignore him, he's one of the most annoying people on Neowin right now, always with his 'wisdom' and knowing better than people who actually use the products, want to learn about them, not just making wise cracks about things becuase you can open you're mouth.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol! Sometimes you just have to laugh when reading your posts, because really, you have no f'n clue half the time about the things which you babble on about! Poor you :D !

Funny that, I noticed the same about some of .neo's posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol! Sometimes you just have to laugh when reading your posts, because really, you have no f'n clue half the time about the things which you babble on about! Poor you :D !

You keep living in Lala Land pretending Gnome's goal isn't to largely mimic Apple. While you're there also pretend the fad going on where distributions were brought into life with the soul purpose of copying the Aqua user experience never happened. I've also told you many times around that I totally agree with there are in fact a few larger distributions, like Ubuntu, which thankfully went their own way and successfully implemented their own look 'n' feel. Which is probably one of the many reasons why they are in fact successful. For whatever reason you always ignore the latter and merely focus on the former. The only ammunition you have are personal attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep living in Lala Land pretending Gnome's goal isn't to largely mimic OS X. While you're there also pretend wasn't at one point a tendency to make distributions with the soul purpose of copying the Aqua user experience. I've also told you many times around that there are in fact a few larger distributions, like Ubuntu, which thankfully went their own way and successfully implemented their own look 'n' feel. For whatever reason you always ignore the latter and merely focus on the former. Sad really.

Gnome 3's interface functions very differently from osx's, and there are only a few visual similarities here and there. You are in your own little world if you seriously think gnome-shell is an osx clone, or is trying to be.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep living in Lala Land pretending Gnome's goal isn't to largely mimic Apple. While you're there also pretend the fad going on where distributions were brought into life with the soul purpose of copying the Aqua user experience never happened. I've also told you many times around that I totally agree with there are in fact a few larger distributions, like Ubuntu, which thankfully went their own way and successfully implemented their own look 'n' feel. Which is probably one of the many reasons why they are in fact successful. For whatever reason you always ignore the latter and merely focus on the former. The only ammunition you have are personal attacks.

Gnome looks nothing like OS X. I don't know where you get your information from but it's patently false.

And the way you talk, it's like Apple invented every single aspect of the desktop where in truth Apple copied all their designs and interface features from pre-existing software. Remember Xerox's PARC? There are many other examples. In fact, I can't think of a single unique interface feature that Apple didn't copy from someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gnome 3's interface functions very differently from osx's, and there are only a few visual similarities here and there. You are in your own little world if you seriously think gnome-shell is an osx clone, or is trying to be.

I've seen most people agree here that Gnome goes in the direction of OS X, while KDE is inspired most by Windows. If you think that's something I just came up with myself you're wrong.

And the way you talk, it's like Apple invented every single aspect of the desktop where in truth Apple copied all their designs and interface features from pre-existing software. Remember Xerox's PARC? There are many other examples. In fact, I can't think of a single unique interface feature that Apple didn't copy from someone else.

There's a big difference between copying things and actually buying them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen most people agree here that Gnome goes in the direction of OS X, while KDE is inspired most by Windows.

Rubbish. OS X and Windows are not unique. Interface designers get their ideas from all over the place. Windows and OS X borrowed and still do today from other OS's. To claim that OS X and Windows are the originators of every interface design feature is just ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rubbish. OS X and Windows are not unique. Interface designers get their ideas from all over the place. Windows and OS X borrowed and still do today from other OS's. To claim that OS X and Windows are the originators of every interface design feature is just ludicrous.

I didn't say that, but it is pretty obvious where both get most of their inspiration from. Quite a few OS X interface elements have been bought from third-parties. The Dock, Cover Flow, Columns view per example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For whatever reason the Linux Desktop crowd thought they would be taken seriously once they turned pretty much every distribution into a cheap OS X knock-off. Unsurprisingly that didn't work either.

Oooooh, I'm afraid. I'm shaking in my ****ing boots.

Not really.

Are you actually suggesting that a brilliant and amazingly stable *nix like OS, free for the consumers, is a bad thing? :huh:

It is free. It is thriving. Let it's users download whichever distro they want and let them skin it like OSX or **********ing Windows 3.1, it's their choice to make - not yours or anyone else's.

"Linux Desktop crowd"? Really?

**** OFF :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.